09 14 2006 C of A Agenda
Thursdav September 14, 2006, 9:30 a.m.
1. Communications and Correspondence
OACA Newsletter, July 2006
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
3. Hearings:
9:30 2006-A-25 Norma Wylie
Plan 629, Lot 6 (Oro)
11 Nelson Street
9:40 2006-B-20 Ericana Industries Inc.
Conc. 5 Pt. Lot 22 (Orc)
239 Line 4 S
9:50 2006-A-26 Margaret Dynes
Plan 626, Lot 72,73 (arc)
24 Myrtle Ave
10:00 2006-A-23 Heather Shear
(Revised) Plan 765, Lot 16 (Oro)
31 Greenwood Ave.
10:10 A-25/91 (Rev) Kevin Liscombe
Plan 1488, Lot 72 (Oro)
21 Greengables Dr.
10:20 2006-A-22(Rev) Jerome & Linda Cunningham
Plan 535, Lot 11 (Orc)
2 Nevis Ridge Road
10:30 2006-B-16 John & Dorothy Howard (Estate)
Conc. 10, East Part Lot 7, West Part
Lot 6 (Medonte)
4182 Line 10 North
10:40 2005-B-32 - Ted Pickard & Lisa Truax
2005-B-36 Conc. 8, Plan 51 R-24483
Part 1 East Part 16 (Medonte)
128 Moonstone Rd. East
1 1
11:10
2006-A-28
Kimberley Olynyk
Lot A, Part Lot K, Plan 663 (arc)
51 Barrie Terrace
11 :20
2006-A-29
Dean Miles
Conc.5, West Part Lot 22 (Medonte)
6353 Line 4 N
11 :30
2006-A-30
Dianne Smith
Conc. 1, Plan 1, Part Lots 15 & 16
65 Barrie Terrace (Oro)
11 :40
2006-A-31
Walter Stapiak
Plan 589, Lots 15 & 16 (Orc)
99 Lakeshore Road E.
11 :50
2006-A-24
G rant Serra
Conc. 11, North Part Lot 1 (arc)
883 Horseshoe Valley Road East
4. Decisions
5. Other business
-Adoption of minutes for August 10, 2006 Meeting
6. Adjournment
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
September 14,2006
Elma Wylie
2006-A-25
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct a deck and enclosed sunroom addition at the rear of an
existing single detached dwelling. The deck and sunroom have a total area of 31.5 m2 (340 n\ and
will be setback approximately 12.8 metres (42 feet) from the shoreline of Bass Lake, and
approximately 2.4 metres (8 feet) from the east property line. Zoning By-law 97-95 requires a 3
metre (9.5 foot) setback to interior side lot lines in the Shoreline Residential Zone. As well, section
5.3.1 of Zoning By-law 97-95 requires that all buildings, with the exception of boathouses and
pumphouses, be setback a minimum of 15 metres (49.2 feet) from the average high water mark
of Bass Lake.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR)
Previous Applications - none
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is
for the Committee to make
Public Works Department -
Building Department -
Engineering Department - No concerns
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority-
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 15.2 metres (50 feet) having a lot
depth of approximately 45.7 metres (150 feet), and a shoreline frontage of approximately 18.5
metres (60.7 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.08 hectares (0.19 acres). A single detached
dwelling and one accessory building currently exist on the subject property. The proposed deck
and enclosed sunroom is to be located at the rear of the dwelling facing onto Bass Lake. The
proposed deck and sunroom is located 2.4 metres (8 feet) from the east interior side lot line,
where a 3 metre (9.2 foot) setback is required, and 12.8 metres (42 feet) from the water's edge,
where a 15 metre (49.2 foot) setback from the average water mark is
Do the variances conform to the
intent of the Official Plan?
in the
Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the
Official Plan sets out the
is
To maintain the character of this residential area.
To the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline.
The requested variance for the proposed deck and sunroom would appear to maintain the
character of the shoreline residential area, as the proposed deck and sunroom are common
architectural features found in residential neighbourhoods. Therefore, the variances would
conform to the general intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan.
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). The primary purpose of the
setback requirement from Bass Lake is to protect the natural features of the shoreline area in
general, and the immediate shoreline of the subject property. The interior side yard setback has
been established to provide access to the rear of the property, along with preserving privacy from
and for neighbouring properties. A site inspection revealed that several mature trees, along with
high hedges and other dense foliage exist along the east property line. Therefore, given that the
applicant is seeking a reduction for the side yard setback of approximately 1.2 feet and that the
proposed deck and sunroom will be constructed in line with the exterior walls of an existing
dwelling, coupled with the existence of a natural treed buffer, privacy for neighbouring properties
would not appear to be negatively impacted.
The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has been circulated this application for
comment on the proposed setback variance from Bass Lake. At the time of writing of this report,
comments have not yet been received. Committee should note that the existing single detached
dwelling complies with the 15 metre (49.2 foot) setback to Bass Lake. On this basis, the variance
would conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law; however, clearance from the NVCA will
be recommended as a condition of approval.
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed deck and enclosed sunroom will not change the
overall character of the dwelling, and would appear to be appropriate for the desirable
development for both the lot and the surrounding residential area.
Are the variances minor?
On the basis that the proposed deck and sunroom are common features in residential
neighbourhoods, and will not have a negative impact on privacy or access for either the subject or
surrounding properties, the proposed variance is considered to be minor.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed variance generally satisfies the tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2006-A-25 subject to the following
conditions:
1. The proposed attached deck and sunroom shall be setback no closer than 12.9 metres
(42 feet) from the average high water mark of Bass
2. The proposed attached deck and sunroom shall be setback no closer than 2.4 metres
to the easterly interior side
3. That the setbacks be in
with the dimensions as set out the
as
4. That the applicant obtain approval from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, if
required;
5. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to
pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report.
6. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official
only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the
Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Kozlowski, B.URPI
Planning Technician
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
iff8 .'
fr6 ( ~WAI
#l:i-nJJiJ
'....
~
"
~ ~
~
....
6~~
~
~
~
~
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
September 14, 2006
Ericana Industries Inc. 2006-8-20
239 Line 4 South, Concession 5, Part Lot 22, RP 51R-15707 Part 4 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2006-B-20 is to permit the creation of a new industrial lot from a
larger industrial property. The land to be severed is proposed to have a lot frontage of 50.3
metres (165 feet) along Line 4 South, a lot depth of approximately 200 metres (654 feet) and
a lot area of approximately 1.8 hectares (4.5 acres). The land proposed to be retained would
have a lot frontage along Line 4 South of 71.63 metres (235 feet), a lot depth of
approximately 85 metres (279 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres).
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Industrial
Zoning By-law 97-95 -Economic Development (ED) Zone
Previous Applications - None
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County
Public Works Department-
Building Department-The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and note that
the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards
Engineering Department- Residents very sensitive to development in this area. Site plan
should require burming and planting along lot lines
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
It is the applicant's intent to create a new lot fronting on Line 4 South in the Winstar Industrial
Park. The land proposed to be severed is currentl~ vacant with a significant amount of tree
cover. The retained lands have an existing 1000 m (10,765 ft2) industrial factory.
OFFICIAL PLAN
Section D7.4 of the Township's Official Plan provides the following direction to Committee in
considering an application for consent in the Industrial designation:
New lots
Registered
adopted
been
use can be created by consent or other means in a
of Subdivision that existed on date this was
if issues to servicing access have already
with when the
If the proposed lot is approved, both the severed and retained lot would comply with the
minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage in the Economic Development (ED) Zone.
ANALYSIS
The nature of development proposed appears to be appropriate for the creation of a new
industrial lot for an industrial use on the subject property which will be consistent with the
surrounding industrial uses. The proposed consent generally conforms with the Official Plan
on the basis that the proposed lot is located within an existing plan of subdivision which
predates the Official Plan. Furthermore the site appears to be adequately serviced and
capable of accommodating a range of potential industrial uses.
On the basis that the proposal will permit the creation of a new industrial lot that would
satisfy all zoning provisions and will maintain the intent of the Official Plan policies, the
consent application is deemed to maintain the intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-
law.
CONCLUSION
The applications generally conform with the lot creation policies of the Industrial Designation
in the Official Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee Approve Provisional Consent for application 2006-B-20
subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the new lot be prepared by an Ontario Land
Surveyor and be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer;
2. That the applicants solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance
for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. That the applicant dedicate to the Municipality a fee of $500 for each new lot created
for industrial or commercial purposes as cash-in-lieu of a parkland contribution
pursuant to Section 53(13) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P. 13.; and,
4. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year
from the date of the giving of the notice of decision.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
,RPP
Qcre=43560 5 feet
654.000
235.00
375.00
279.00
1 Qcre=43560 5 feet
I
HOLICK
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
September 14, 2006
Margaret Dynes
2006-A-26
24 Myrtle Ave. Registered Plan 626, Lot 72, 73 (Former Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct a deck, enclosed stairwell, and second storey addition to an
existing single detached dwelling. The deck, enclosed stairwell, and second storey additions have
a total area of 98.9 m2 (1065.2 ft\ The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By-
law 97-95:
Proposed Front Yard
Setback (to proposed deck)
Zone
Required Front
Yard Setback
Shoreline Residential (SR)
7.5 metres
4.52 metres
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Previous Applications - none
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority - No objections, Permit issued August 29, 2006
Public Works Department-
Building Department - No concerns, OLS to pin foundation & provide verification to building
department for setbacks.
Engineering Department - No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 30.2 metres (99.3 feet), a lot depth of
approximately 40 metres (103 feet), and a lot area of approximately 0.11 hectares (0.26 acres).
The lands currently have a single storey dwelling and attached garage with an area of
approximately 195.7 m2 (2107 ft\ The applicant is proposing to add a second storey, consisting
of 73 square metres (789 square feet), and a balcony on the front of the dwelling consisting of 30
square metres (321 square feet).
The applicant has proposed to construct the second storey on the existing dwelling to be a
distance of approximately 6 metres from the front line, and the balcony is
proposed to be 4.5 metres (14.8 feet) from the front line. The purpose of this minor
variance is due to the location of the house, which encroaches into the
7.5 metre front setback as in the Shoreline Residential Zone.
Committee should note that the Township conveyed a portion of land to the front of the subject
property to correct a situation where it was discovered that the existing single detached dwelling
was in fact encroaching onto the road allowance for Myrtle Avenue. However, the conveyance
did not provide the existing dwelling unit on the subject property with an adequate front yard to
meet with the Township Zoning By-law requirements.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the
Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives:
To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area.
To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline.
The requested variance for the new dwelling would appear to maintain the character of the
shoreline residential area as a second storey addition and balcony are common architectural
features in residential neighbourhoods. Further, while the subject property is designated
"Shoreline", the dwelling in fact does not abut Lake Simcoe; The Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority has subsequently reviewed and issued a permit for the proposed addition.
Therefore the variance would appear to conform to the general intent of the policies contained in
the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
With respect to the reduced front yard setback, the proposed location of the dwelling is in keeping
with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood, as many existing residential structures in
the area have been constructed closer to the front property line than permitted under current
Zoning By-law setback provisions. As such, the proposed dwelling would appear to generally
maintain the "building line" on this particular section of Myrtle Avenue.
A site inspection revealed that despite the reduced front yard setback, adequate parking space
for passenger vehicles will exist at the front of the proposed dwelling, and that parking in this
location will not likely impede or hinder road maintenance vehicles (such as snow ploughs) on
Myrtle Avenue.
On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of the
Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed addition to the existing dwelling would appear to be
appropriate for the desirable development of the lot, and would be in keeping with the general
characteristics of the surrounding residential area. Further, the proposed dwelling constitutes a
form of development that is permitted within the Shoreline Residential Zone, and is compatible
with the surrounding neighbourhood.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the dwelling would not adversely affect the character of the Shoreline
Residential area, nor impact on traffic and Township maintenance operations on
the variance is considered to be minor in nature.
CONCLUSIONS
The application to permit an addition to an existing dwelling on the subject property generally
satisfies the four tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2006-A-26 subject to the following
conditions:
1. The proposed "balcony addition" at the front of the proposed dwelling shall be setback no
closer than 4.52 metres (14.8 feet) from the front property line, measured from the south-
west corner of the "balcony";
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on
the sketches submitted with the application dated August 8, 2006, and approved by the
Committee;
3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to
pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report; and,
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Adam Kozlowski, B.URPL
Planning Technician
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
INFORMATION TAKEN FROM
PLAN Of SURVEY
Of'''f>IIlTOI'lol'Y'I'fTU...veNllE.~Rttl'''"''''s.'''l;
~TQWl<$KI"CI'!lIlO)
TOWNSHIP Of OR().MEOONTE
~OfStMcnt
$IGNa):OCT08'eFl4,:lIJD:>
aY,C-T:~{OI.S)
,.
,
.,
.,
,
,
t
.!:!:.~~.~~.~"!_.-
1'l>
,
.,
,
.,
,
.,
,
,
.,
,
., / .:>:!
.,V":~~ ~ ~<<''''''
\>-
f,."""<<'
~-4.~
'6--
, ~
I inch = 15ft.
,~---.~...............-.-
.!,Z.P.L~.!lrA""~.:k'."!-.
. .!!!.!:"~"':"'~~~ .-
'.!.I!.r.L~"",-""",,-,
1::::1
i:
,:::-..!
...------...--..........--.........
---..-.....--.-.-...--......--
\~q
~
_AP"'~"''''~
"'
-/11
~wl
....00.
1[I)Jl
'llJOi
07l
E
B
~1
m'
~~
~~
~!
I
m
! !i
o
i
~o
; i ~~
. ci ~
~ ~ ..
~ i~
. i
z
liS:.::
rna:
:::l<
Cl:E
a:
w
u.
m
c
o c
is!
~~
5~
,0:
m_
l(c
mg
'15'5
,..""
t:<
~N
,
~
..)1 i ~
M~t d
1[I)Jl U
'llJOi ~~
07l l
.::.e.~~_~...!'e"_~'!_.-
. .t.a..~.~~---
.!:.e:.f't..!2-~~..!J::Ef?I'l_rot:~~_._
r.a~T1Nf:jMAJN~fIUtJI'VX;JIIIt
i =r;:ap.::L~~~====:
Q
RJG#.IT ELEVATION
T.o.NE/JI~I'I..J:XIRT(;f"pj"AT7<
------------.-.-
~-~
,-,
JrXTEPII:>>t'SIOINGTO
MArp(/!)<l!JnN6
~M,"",
o.-.c.. .,.",
.z;.g..~-~~_.-
_!:E:.f>!!!-~~.!'J:!?':'R-I9':'.t:::"_TTi___
o
,
I , I I"
\
:: ~I
,:::::;-1
SHEET No
t ~l)~.~~~~~ I ~ I~
" 1!I~1II".'!~~'h ~
'" , , ~h .~.;~. . .
~ ~ ~!'( ~~~l~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ' I . ~~ .~ · ~
~ i~. ih~~. ~ ·
'" ~ ,~~ ~~hi~ ~ i
h "~
'I'
h'.o~
It
ii
~
CLIENT
.~~
~~~
,~~
R.~ ~
U~"
~~~
,.
~m
,~
~t
li
".
~~
i~~
,~!
i tl.
4)-.-.--- ; ~
~
~
"
, ,
rcl5/IUM>DMNEJIII'LOOI'O'JOIIJf1J
~
~
i~
'~
~
iS~1:!
~~~
,>!~
5
6.
~'3'~214"
4'3"'1:l~:
\':
~
ti
~:
~ii
'--!r~
Ij~ w
~:~ ~
ii"
~:
h
'" .~
="
!!
ijl
.
6.
~
~. ~
.
"
"'.
~
"
EET No
~~~~
fihiil
~i~
~~~
t<3
1~
~~
~~
~\l
;(~
~~
~fi
'li
~~
~~
10"
10" e'~l. ~1.;-1~~
.... e'~l. -t.J~ I~ I)
l. l. t \~ ,~ 'iiJ
'i~l~ Iml~
i \~ '()';1::
,U \~ 1m
\} \~ ' 'I:>
,I;>, i !~ ti
I~ I~ ~~ ~ !~ 1
i~i~ I~I
,d ~2 ~ !i i~ i
!~ !~ \j
~ ~ I~ ,iii,
I I
II'" iii'
,,~ I I
I I
u
~~
d
U
~~
~
~\l!
~i>
~~
~"
t~
"~
\l~~
;oa:~
~;:(}
~~t;\
""i
\l
~~
~~
~
I:>
~~
i]
~~
<:
B~~~
?>~~i!i
~~~
~~~
tiS
~~
l:~
~=1
n~
~\1
U
..is
~?>
~}
~~
,
,
,
UENT
".
"-'"
.......,
........>:::::"11
'.
.....
.'
....#,.-,.--
.'....
".
....
i Ii
11
,I 1':.:, II
\:'\1,
:::l I::~
!.~;;;;;;;}.'::::::::::::}.'::::::,-:}. ':.::.n \y.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:;:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:Ll
~~
ii
)\
,~ II
~ m h~
i .....'1
, ~hi'"
h~H~I~~
!.Hh@~~
~ ~"b~,t
~ .~ij~~~~
~ ~~~ ~~~
t ~U · -
SHEET No
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
September 14, 2006
Heather Shear
2006-A-23
(REVISED)
31 Greenwood Ave. Plan M765, Lot 16 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposin~ to demolish the existing seasonal dwelling and construct a new dwelling
with an area of 197.72 m (2128 fe). The applicant has previously appeared before the Committee
of Adjustment on August 10, 2006, where this application was deferred due to revised setback
distances being submitted for the proposed single detached dwelling (as shown on the attached
sketch). As such, it was necessary to re-circulate the revised proposal to neighbouring properties
within 60 metres. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95:
1) That the minimum required interior side yard setback be reduced from 3.0 metres (9.8 feet) to
1.5 metres (5 feet) on the south interior side yard and;
2) That the minimum required interior side yard setback be reduced from 3.0 metres (9.8 feet) to
2.45 metres (8 feet) on the north interior side yard and;
3) That the minimum required front yard setback for the proposed deck be reduced from 7.5 metres
(24.6 feet) to 2.7 metres (8.9 feet) and;
4) That the minimum required front yard setback for the proposed dwelling be reduced from 7.5
metres (24.6 feet) to 3.85 metres (12.6 feet).
MUNICIPAL
ZONING AND PREVIOUS
Official Plan Designation - Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Previous Applications - none
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department - No concerns
Building Department - Lot grading and drainage plan required for review by Township Engineer.
Applicant to verify that sewage system meets with minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of
the OBC. Designer to provide calculations for unprotected openings re: limiting distance.
Engineering Department - No concerns
of
a shoreline
a lot area of approximately 0.07 hectares (0.18 acres). The lands currently have a one-storey
dwelling with an area of approximately 107.36 m2 (1155.6 ft\ The applicant is proposing to
demolish the existing seasonal dwelling and build a new one-storey single detached dwelling with
additional loft living space. The ground floor area for the new dwelling is proposed to be 197.72
m2 (2128.24 ff) and will meet the required 15 metre (49.2 foot) setback from the average high
water mark of Bass Lake.
The purpose of this minor variance application is due to the placement of the new dwelling, which
is proposed to include a front deck to be located 2.7 metres (8.8 feet) from the front property line
with the dwelling unit to be located 3.85 metres (12.6 feet) from the front property line. The
dwelling is also proposed to encroach into the interior side yard setbacks, to be located 1.5
metres (5 feet) from the south interior side lot line, and 2.45 metres (8 feet) from the north interior
side lot line. The Township Zoning By-law requires a 7.5 metre (24.6 foot) front yard setback and
a 3 metre (9.5 foot) interior side yard setback for the main dwelling unit in the Shoreline
Residential Zone.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the
Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives:
To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area.
To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline.
The requested variance for the new dwelling would appear to maintain the character of the
shoreline residential area as the dwelling will meet the minimum required setback from Bass
Lake. As well, the side yards of the property contain cedar hedges and several large, mature
trees which will serve as a buffer between the proposed dwelling and neighbouring properties to
the north and south. Therefore the variance would appear to conform to the general intent of the
policies contained in the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). The primary purpose for
maintaining side yard setbacks in residential areas is to ensure that privacy between properties is
maintained. As noted earlier, the existing hedges and mature trees on both the north and south
property lines will provide a form of buffering to ensure privacy for the subject and neighbouring
lands.
Initially, the applicant had requested a variance for the north and south interior side yard setbacks
of 1.85 metres (6 feet). Staff noted concerns with this reduced side yard setback, in that access
to the rear of the property would be hindered. Through discussion with the applicant, it was
agreed that increasing one of the side yard setbacks would be more appropriate for access to the
rear of the property. Accordingly, the applicant has submitted a revised site plan depicting a
north interior side yard setback of 2.45 metres (8 feet). The proposed 2.45 metre (8 foot) north
interior side yard setback is considered adequate to provide access for emergency, maintenance,
and construction vehicles. As well, being that the proposed septic system is located in the rear
yard, the additional side yard setback will additional room for septic maintenance
equipment.
With respect to the reduced front yard setback, the proposed location of the is in keeping
with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood, as many existing residential structures in
the area have been constructed closer to the front line than under current
Zoning setback provisions. As the proposed dwelling would appear to
maintain the line" on this section of Greenwood Avenue.
The site inspection revealed that the proposed dwelling should not adversely impact the
residential neighbourhood, as the new dwelling will not encroach into the required 15 metre (50
foot) setback from Bass Lake. It is noted that the existing dwelling appears to be within this
setback; therefore the proposed dwelling would improve this deficiency. In addition, the applicant
has indicated that the existing wood post fence at the front of the property will be removed. A site
inspection revealed that despite the reduced front yard setback, adequate parking space for
passenger vehicles will exist at the front of the proposed dwelling, and that parking in this location
will not likely impede or hinder road maintenance vehicles (such as snow ploughs) on Greenwood
Drive.
On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of the
Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed new dwelling would appear to be appropriate for the
desirable development of the lot, and would be in keeping with the general characteristics of the
surrounding residential area. Further, the proposed dwelling constitutes a form of development
that is permitted within the Shoreline Residential Zone, and is compatible with the surrounding
neighbourhood.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the dwelling would not adversely affect the character of the Shoreline
Residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor in nature.
CONCLUSIONS
The application to permit a new dwelling on the subject property generally satisfies the four tests
of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATiONS
It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2006-A-23 (REVISED) subject to the
following conditions:
1. The proposed "wood deck" at the front of the proposed dwelling shall be setback no
closer than 2.7 metres (8.9 feet) from the front property line, measured from the north-
west corner of the "wood deck", and shall be setback no closer than 1.5 metres (5 feet)
from the south interior side lot line and 2.45 metres (8 feet) from the north interior side lot
line;
2. The proposed dwelling shall be setback no closer than 3.8 metres (12.6 feet) from the
front property line;
3. The proposed dwelling shall be setback no closer than 1.5 metres (5 feet) from the south
interior side lot line and 2.45 (8 feet) from the north interior side lot
4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the revised sketches
submitted VIA fax August 3, 2006 and approved the Committee;
5. That the
obtain approval from the Nottawasaga
Conservation
if
6.
and be
to the satisfaction of the
a
for review
7. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to
pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report; and,
8. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Adam Kozlowski, B.URPL
Planning Technician
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
08/03/2006 14:13
.
4167454496
e
ETOBICOKE ENT
~
i.: i ,I
! II! H I ~~
i il i I' i I !
~"h E!Ii e
~ ,i.ai db ~~4
: !!!!Ii
g~
i
I
; ~ l
~ ~ I
~ i '
~~!!~
'1" "I
2. IP I!
B~ ~I ;I
~ ~ I;
I!li il
R i!
d', ~
@! ? l': 1')
~
a ~
II I a
luH~
WU
$.": ~!
~
~
~~
~I
I
\
\
I
\
\
\
,
~:~
~t
':!\~
r'W
'~f.'
~~i
,
\
\
,
\
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
., 1
_ \
\
\
,
\
\
\
\
>- \
0\
...J\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
I I
\ - I
\ g ,
\ ~ \
_ ____ __ __ _ ____,.. ...1>... .,.. ..m..__" - ------
:" OI,l'.:'Ol
.;
ui~
-'!:
'&
\
~>r" ..' .
\- ~\ ~
S $.', ~.\i\
. ~\ \"."
tt" t\~
\ to-",
, H,_
, .~
Ii
.
~
(11) ~'OO- \ ~SBS 'ON NI,;
;:s:
e
.'
~~
,
,
\
\
I
,
I
,
\
\
\
,
,
,
\
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
\
\
,
r-- ''!l
- ~
?A
'l'.
PAGE 03/03
::i ~-
III
2~
~ ~~ ~ ili
;E~~~~f !
~ ~ ! ~ i ~ i IUI;~I
I~~i~~i ~l~ l.
~ ~ : ~ ~ ~!2 5IP:,
~~~1~811 R
e~ ~ ~ ·
t I d!
. ~.
~ j : B
($:l
\~,
~
,..
o
-'
\
,
\
,
\
\
,
,
,
\
,
,
\
,
,
\
\
,
i
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
September 14, 2006
Kevin Uscombe
A-25/91 (Revised)
21 Greengables Drive, Plan 1488, Lot 72 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
Previously, a minor variance application was applied for and was granted relief for the
construction of an addition to the existing dwelling and an attached deck. The addition and deck
was approved for a reduced rear yard setback of 6.15 metres (20 feet) from the rear property line.
On August 10, 2006, minor variance application A-25/91 was deferred to allow time for the
applicant to consider amending the application for the setback from the deck to the rear property
line. The applicant has since revised the application by reducing the setback distance from the
rear property line to the existing deck from the original proposed distance of 5.1 metres (17 feet)
to 4.5 metres (15 feet). The reason for this revised setback distance is to allow the applicant
flexibility to replace floor boards in the future with the possibility of enlargement of the deck.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
A-25/91 - Committee of Adjustment approved the construction of a deck, where a reduction in the
required rear yard setback of 7.5 metres to 6.15 metres was granted.
Official Plan Designation - Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR)
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Municipal Works/Roads- No Concerns
Building Department - Existing deck has not been inspected.
Engineering Department - No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 30 metres (98.4 feet) along Greengables
Drive, a lot depth of approximately 50 metres (164 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.14
hectares (0.36 acres). The property currently contains a single storey residential dwelling.
The applicant has recently constructed a new deck, located at the rear of the dwelling. The new
deck is subsequently located 5.1 metres (17 feet) from the rear property line. Therefore, this new
deck does not meet the previously-approved 6.15 metre (20 feet) rear yard setback. addition,
the applicant now seeks to further reduce the rear yard setback to 4.5 metres (15 to allow for
future enlargement of the deck. As a permission is required from the Committee of
to the setback
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Township Official Plan. A single detached dwelling
with a deck is a permitted use on lands designated Shoreline.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
In assessing the issue of conformity with the Zoning By-law, the deck addition should not detract
from the overall character of the lot and surrounding neighbourhood. As well, the rear yard
setback has been established to ensure privacy for both the subject property and neighbouring
dwellings. A site inspection of the property revealed that several large trees and shrubs exist at
the rear of the subject property, and as well, that the dwellings neighbouring the rear of the
subject property are setback approximately 25 metres (80 feet) from the property line. Due to this
setback and the existence of a tree buffer, privacy for neighbouring properties would appear to be
maintained. Therefore, the application conforms to the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Decks are common architectural features for residential dwellings. As well, due to the existing
vegetation buffer and separation between existing dwellings, this application will not have a
negative impact on the residential character of either the subject property or neighbourhood.
Therefore, this application represents appropriate development for the property.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the deck would not adversely affect the character of the Shoreline Residential
area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor in nature.
CONCLUSIONS
Relief from the previously-approved reduced rear yard setback would not appear to have a
negative impact on surrounding properties, as this application generally satisfies the 4 tests of a
minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Committee approve the revision to Minor Variance Application A-25/91,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That Committee recognize the existing deck, and that any future deck renovation and/or
addition shall be setback no closer than 4.5 metres (15 feet) from the rear lot line;
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on
the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
Services
/&tlb.
~
')
o
v'1
"
u
..........
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
September 14, 2006
Jerome & Linda Cunningham
2006-A-22(Revised)
2 Nevis Ridge Road, Lot 11, Plan 535 (Oro)
PROPOSAL
On August 10, 2006, minor variance application 2006-A-22 was deferred by the Committee
of Adjustment which would permit the construction of a detached garage with an area of 62.4
m2 (672 ft2) to be located in the front yard of the lot. The applicants have since submitted a
revised site plan showing the detached garage being relocated closer to the dwelling, being
setback 17.7 metres (58 feet) from Jermey Lane.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation -Rural Residential
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Rural Residential One (RUR1) Zone
Previous Applications - None
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department- No road concerns
Building Department-
Engineering Department- No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 64 metres (210 feet) along Jermey
Lane, a depth of approximately 69 metres (226 feet) along Nevis Ridge Drive and a lot area
of approximately 0.44 hectares (1.1 acres) and is presently occupied by a single detached
dwelling and an attached garage. The Township's Zoning By-law provides the following
definition in determining yards for a corner lot:
FRONT
Means the line
divides
lot
the
street,
in
case of:
a comer lot, the shortest
be deemed to be the
lot lines that divides the lot from the
street
The applicants are proposing to construct a 62.4 m2 (672 fe) detached garage to be located
in the required front yard a distance of 17.7 metres (58 feet) from the front lot line, Jermey
Lane. Section 5.1.3 (a) of the Township's Zoning By-law states that detached garages are not
allowed in the front yard. The minor variance application is for the construction of a detached
garage to be located in the front yard and also for an increase in height from the required 4.5
metres (14.7 feet) to 5.2 metres (17 feet).
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Rural Residential in the Official Plan. The main objective in the
Rural Residential designation is to recognize existing estate and country estate
developments in the Township. Permitted uses in the Rural Residential designation are
mainly single detached dwellings and accessory uses.
The applicant's proposal does not appear to offend these principles given that the variances
will accommodate development of a detached accessory building accessory to the permitted
residential use and would not appear to have a negative impact on the character of the
residential area.
On this basis the proposal is considered to conform with the intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Rural Residential One (RUR1). Based on site inspection, the
proposed building is situated which proves to be the most ideal location for a building. One
of the purposes of maintaining minimum front yards in the Rural Residential One Zone is to
maintain and protect the estate residential character of a single detached residential
community. However, it is also the intent of the By-law to permit accessory uses that are
reasonable and incidental to a residential use. Given that there will be adequate on site
parking and the garage will be setback 17.7 metres (58 feet) from the front lot line, Jermey
Lane and approximately 40 metres (131 feet) from Nevis Ridge Drive, and the proposal for the
increase in height is considered reasonable and minor in size, the proposed variances are
considered to conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Notwithstanding the
front yard, the proposed detached garage will be located behind the existing dwelling as a
result of the orientation and placement of the dwelling facing towards Nevis Ridge.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The applicant's lot is a relatively large rural residential property and the proposed building
appears generally compatible within a rural residential context. Based on the site inspection,
the detached garage with an increase in height would appear to be appropriate for the
desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. It also
should be noted that the applicants have submitted a revised sketch indicating proposed
landscaping in the front yard, adjacent to Jermey Lane and around the proposed garage,
buffering it from street. On this basis proposal is considered appropriate the
desirable development of the subject
Is the
in contrast with the
and lot lines
affect the character of the rural residential area, the proposed variances are considered to be
minor.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance as follows:
1. The proposal is considered to conform with the intent of the Official Plan as the
proposal does not appear to offend the principles of the Rural Residential
Designation.
2. The proposed variances are considered to conform with the general intent of the
Zoning By-law.
3. The proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject
lot.
4. The proposed variances are considered to be minor.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance Application 2006-A-22 as
revised subject to the following conditions:
1. That the height of the detached garage not exceed 5.2 metres (17 feet);
2. That the proposed detached garage be located no closer than 17 metres (55 feet) from
the front lot line, Jermey Lane, in accordance with the sketch submitted with the
application;
3. That the sketch submitted with the application as revised indicating the proposed
landscaping be approved by the Committee;
4. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the detached garage be no closer
than 17 metres (55 feet) from the front lot line and that the height of the detached
garage not exceed 5.2 metres (17 feet); and
5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided
for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
ACST(A)
~
~
e
~
~
~
8
0\
1.0
r----' :---r-_n_n:
r-e~'-- -: : : ~
I ... '=J....
\0 ~ I ~.... Q.,
...;. I : Q.~"O
...... e'Il I I ~ ~ ~
...: : 00 ~ .Q
; ,
, I
I I
, ,
I I
Ln_ __n_--'
t-:
1
~
t:>Jll..
= .e
.... '=J
-;; :=
.... l..
~ ...
~oo
,...,
~ ~
o ~
~"C
~~
"C 0
~~
"C
~ ~
o ~
Q.;;..
o ~
~~
~
=:
.....
.....
tI.l
.....
~
~
a:-
n:..:
1
(i:)
n
t:>Jl
.s "0 ~
-;;~~
.~ ~ .t:
~~~
e
......
...;.
l"4'"J
8
~
=:
.-
"C Q.;
~ ~
tI.l ~
o l"I.l
Q.;"C
o =:
;.. ~
~~
..
~
~
00
.~
;;;;..
~
Z
M
:::tt:
~
~
<
U
rJl
~
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
September 14, 2006
Estate of John & Dorothy Howard
2006-8-16
Concession
East Part Lot West Part Lot 6
PROPOSAL
On July 13, 2006, consent application 2006-B-16 was deferred by the Committee of
Adjustment which would permit the creation of a 50 acre lot. The proponent submitted a
series of lengthy and complex legal descriptions and land conveyance history regarding this
property. The deferral allowed time for a review of the supporting documentation by the
Township solicitor. The purpose of the consent application is for a technical severance to
create a new lot which once existed as a separate parcel of land. The lands proposed to be
severed would have a lot frontage along Line 10 of approximately 307 metres (1,010 ft), a lot
depth of approximately 658 metres (2,160 ft) and a lot area of approximately 20.2 hectares
(50 acres). The lands to be retained would have a lot area of approximately 32 hectares (80
acres) and currently contain a dwelling and various outbuildings.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Agricultural, Environmental Protection Two Overlay, Ground
Water Recharge Area Overlay
Zoning By-law 97-95 -Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone
Previous Applications - None
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County-
Public Works Department-
Building Department- The Township Building Dept. has reviewed the application and note
that a site inspection was completed and note that the proposal appears to meet the
minimum standards and that the applicant is to verify that the sewage system meets the
minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code.
Engineering Department- No Concerns
The purpose consent
once existed as a separate parcel
lot line 10
658 metres
to be
is for a severance to create a new lot which
The lands proposed to be
307 metres (1 0
a lot area of
have a area of
various
The Township's solicitor reviewed the documentation submitted by the applicant and
conducted a search of title and provided a report of his findings dated July 25, 2006, of which
was provided to the Committee for their review.
He concludes that the northeast quarter of Lot 7, Concession 10 was a separate conveyable
lot for the period February 28, 1929 to April 15, 1937 owned by Lewis Wesley Duddy when it
became merged with the Southeast quarter of Lot 7, also owned by Lewis Wesley Duddy. At
this point, there is a merger of title with Lewis Wesley Duddy owning the entire East Half of
Lot 7.
OFFICIAL PLAN
Section 02.3.10 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow Committee to consider
applications to re-divide large parcels of agricultural land which have merged in title. The
policy states:
The creation of new lots to correct a situation where two or more lots have merged on
title may be permitted, provided the Committee of Adjustment is satisfied that the new lot:
. was once separate conveyable lot in accordance with the Planning Act;
. is of the same shape and size as the lot which once existed as a separate
conveyable lot;
. can be adequately serviced by on-site sewage and water systems;
. fronts on a public road that is maintained year-round by a public authority; and
. an entrance permit is available for the new driveway accessing the severed lot from
the appropriate authority, if required.
In order to confirm that the lot to be created was once a conveyable lot, the Committee of
Adjustment received registered deeds and the lawyers abstract which indicate that the new
lot was once legally conveyable. Based on the site inspection, it was determined that the
severed lot, which fronts on an assumed public road, Line 10 North, could be serviced with
on-site sewage and water systems, subject to the Building Dept. approval.
ZONING BY-LAW
The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) in the Township's Zoning
By-law 97-95, as amended. The proposed and retained lots would continue to comply with
the provisions of the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone.
CONCLUSION
By reviewing the deeds provided by the applicants and by reviewing the lawyers abstract,
they confirm that the 50 acre parcel described as Northeast Quarter of Lot Concession 10
was once a separate and conveyable parcel, before the merging with the Southeast Quarter
of Lot 7. The proposal appears to meet Section 02.3.10 the
Official Plan.
that the
list
Grant
6
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject lands indicating the severed
parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-
Treasurer;
2. That the applicants' solicitor prepares and submits a copy of the proposed
conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality. Furthermore, the
legal description of the severed lot be identical to that contained in the original deed
- "The Northeast Quarter, Lot 7, Concession 10 (formerly Township of Medonte),
now Township of Oro-Medonte, containing fifty (50) acres" and must be so
designated on a Reference Plan to be provided by the Applicant;
3. That the applicants verify that the sewage system meets the minimum required
setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code to the satisfaction of the Building
Department; and,
4. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year
from the date of the giving of the notice of decision.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
~iS' HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
:C
a
lIj "E!
1,y m
3= "'i5.. c.. ~
a CL a a
::c c:a:: ...... t...J
u =e
11IIII c::I CI
:::; - :=:
.
II~
.....
IlI!I
+~
II
4=! ~
Q 1iI
CoD
- 1::
N ftP
:=< i:Il..
4=! .....
:=:
Q
e 0
c:n f
11IIII U
"Z:: ftP
:::! c::I
...
ftP In
u )(
E e
1iI i:Il..
i:Il..
-a ftP
f u
Glo ..c:lI
>
Glo ~
~
1!
.:i!
:::!
U
'Z::
c:n
c
:=:
iIIIII
m
1iI
:=
ftP
-=
.....
~
4=!
c::I
CoD
N
M
:=<
4=!
M
N
c::I
-
~
1iI
1::
ftP
i:Il..
.....
~
f
it
ftP
i:Il..
..c:lI
E
u
~
......
.,;
l!J
Glo
-a
'.
&
-a
11IIII
ftP
--
o
>< f
~~
i:Il.. c::I
ftP M
c:n-
"i! Cb
i:~
4lIl 11IIII
Glo CD
ii
-a ..c:lI
I CD
1..c:lI
=~
CoD
li
1:
4IJlI
i:Il..
.....
fJ1~
".J::..
~~~.~.
....::~.~>~
'f.:;1J;
"A.=::"' ...
~i~~~~t..
{i.',,;:',,!;,~ .'~:' .~tv ~1" .:
-'..-...: -= '"' '~~:':>
:I = = .......f:.": ~.:..:,.....
CI -~. "+..:21,...."':-
1~J~ ; m. -- <:.: .-..~~.\f:ti
w,......o: ..y t... '-".:: '1:i...t.
'1}~~;i~l.~i/~;i{~~~~
CoD
li
1::
4IJlI
i:Il..
.....
:C
.i
en
"f
II . t...J
.
~
4i
~
'1
I
,0
& soliCitor
July 25, 2006
The Corporation of the
Township of Oro-Medonte
148 Line 7 South
P. O. Box 100
ORO, ON LOL 2XO
VIA FAX TO: 487-0133
ORIGINALS BY POST
Attention: Mr. Andy Karaiskakis
Planner
Dear Sirs:
RE: HOWARD Consent Application 2006-B-16
to your memo 16, 2006 in connection with
above-noted Consent Application, from the material submitted it would appear that the
lands to be severed comprise the Northeast Quarter, Lot 7, Concession 10, formerly
Township of Medonte, consisting of approximately 50 acres.
These lands were once a separate conveyable lot having been so
created by Deed registered February 28, 1929 as Instrument No. 11543 wherein John
Duddy, as Administrator of the Estate of George H. Duddy, conveyed the Northeast
Quarter, Lot 7, Concession 10, to Lewis Wesley Duddy. A copy of this Deed is enclosed.
Lewis Wesley Duddy subsequently acquired the Southeast Quarter,
Lot 7, Concession 10, under the Last Will and Testament of John Duddy registered April
15, 1937. this point, there is a merger of title with Lewis Wesley Duddy owning the
East of Lot 7.
East Half was
15, 1955 as Instrument
so Deed
convey to
Instrument No
. . . 2
The Corporation the
Township of Oro-Medonte
Attention: Mr. Andy Karaiskakis
Planner
- 2 -
25, 2006
Therefore, what must be considered by the Committee is as follows:
(1 )
The Northeast Quarter of Lot 7, Concession 10, formerly Township
of Medonte was a separate conveyable lot for the period February
28, 1929 to April 15, 1937 when it became merged with the
Southeast Quarter of Lot 7.
Does the fact that almost 70 years has passed since the Northeast
Quarter of Lot 7 was a separate conveyable lot have any bearing on
the Section D 2.3.1 O(a) of your Official Plan as that Section states
the newly created lot must once have been a separate conveyable
lot in accordance with the Planning Act? The reason I raise this
issue is that the Planning Act was not in effect at that time.
(2)
Should the Committee decide to grant the severance based on upon
Section D 2.3.10, the legal description of the severed lot must be
identical to that contained in the original Deed to Lewis Wesley
Duddy, that is:
"The Northeast Quarter, Lot 7, Concession 10 (formerly Township
of Medonte), now Township of Oro-Medonte, containing (50)
acres" and must be so designated on a Reference Plan to be
provided by the Applicant.
I shall hold my account herein pending your review of the foregoing
and my answering any further concerns you may have.
KLAUS N.
:mr
Enclosure
aria 'tho]l&.rUe iii of the !bird and Jl'o'!l:l'th parts t ,/"""'/
AND THE GRANTOR!" release to the Grantee ,all theU' claims; upon
the said Innds. 'and the said Emma Dueldy hereby elects. to take her
distributive hare ,in ,the estate of the 'said deceased in lieu of
it all 60Vler,i hel real estate of the said deoeased.
rl:' _ __ :,.:'-- _>..;i,.,>''.'. ',' """'"f": ;').'"<r,:_-::,,,,',:,-:"
:;' XliWImES ~~0Jl' tile said pe.rt18111 hereto have hereunto oot
"~ho.nc18,~4BO~~.'" " .
).
SIOBEDt'SEJJ.oE1? an4Dm:.rmmD) V'
l~1=3~:0:uur I
~,,~~. 1 V
~~~'l
,,' "", ',., , .' 'f' ~
l ~ 'I
)
(
I :l
j~cI;J!,~- ~-
( ,
l
J
I
11
-/~~
1/ ._._ '
,-;--' . 1 ~J~
""'{:ChC ~c.)/.. \.. ..b ,.
~2'. ).:,-c.~ /3~~ ;{~
/
~+' .
~
'tciuo...
1 31.
OP SillKJ01 0f the TO"m:l
; in the Ccu.nty
'I'll \\'it :) JIl.d~t~ ()nth iHHl :illY
'',...J...<:(.)
~r1:V""'r ,.lJi Ql:~nd .
of
of :limoon,
;'>)1<\1\11( (t'i '(' ("".,....<.
~'>
1. T1L.\'l' 1 W:n; pcr.sonully pres<,nt ~nd diJ see the witLi:1 or tl.nll('x~d In~t;'Hll1!:nt
t::t'rcnf dui,y si:.;uN.!, '''L'alcc1 <lnu ~xccutcd by
'II..:ol Muriel ~"t'f ~::tl,,,
:lnci ;j D:l:Jj:~.1t'~
,-,' C!:;,:.:::'os D".ld~y,
1<iVr<-~- /
1!s.e ?.l:i~. {-lld Ro tort
throE; o:t
U;~~?;l;-t j~:"'J? ~:;.~;'1:1.0
" T;..lt i!;c :,~id h.,-,tn:!ilt'lit :uHl lJllpU~atc wa(' eXt'l~utcd h:: t:lC s~iu p:.:'t i.)s...
J-ttb:.'
~;o'i\n
"r
:"...~::t:1:::-..
~Qi.:l::'d~'
3. That I ;-:JHH': :b.~ ::;r.;d P,lft i;;s..
.l. 'n::ll I ;l!:l :. ":l:l:-;l'rihi:l~': wi:,:f.':s ~:J tb:.- ....:lid lli.....!:-:J:l:.;.'!l~ :n:J uupJic:,tc
S\\'OU.\' h:furc ;:~,; ;';.' ~ .,
Tc',-]n
\
I
I
\
(
~}
'~ .f~A-~ :"-tJ .
<'C.:" ~
/.( :LtdlUrlll
~ll u;c
C Ct:...n.~~~
'1F
'!
...:--- .
;~~'L1. (. (
,!;
;:L::..::c,Q
;!:;;i
:5
{L.y {.:
:;;e"}~;: i.;:::J::~"
I ~'l
.J....;
" ( f:!e. ''1.
"-
In
Of I
,~ ......
, '
,,'~ " '. .......
.
.:1) .;.>
~ Po';:::
~'HI U .0
>~l ;..,
"'" '. ~~: (;)
~j ~., S)I ,.) ,... e")' \ ~j "~
.... .... "
v' r;! , ,. H
'" ai ., " Z-I.-l
i:f ~;.~ 6, 0*'-1
~~ ~ ~ '.~ '"j
.:~C{ <:> t~! (;.:):.,
;.. :'-1. (, <l) ~.-iu
; (;~l !."~ M I).;~~ 0\
>- .,
1':;, ." 0,,;;... ._, :~ "s--\
~I ,;", t: - .... '"'
; . ~ ...
.""','.
~ Fr 0 :..
," U .......'; ~
.,;) 0 ~i
M '-ji ,...., '\,
(''I ~\,~
] ::~ " "......)
ci .,/ !i~ ",- ,. -""">.
,........ '-'
, . ~~"
<.,: \'-,
:... !
,
" "
:-;
<;
"I ......,. .. -") ~ ' .".: "., ,">'.
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
September 14, 2006
Ted Pickard & Lisa Truax
2005-8-32 - 2005-8-36
128 Moonstone Road East, Concession 8, East Part Lot 16, 51R-24483, Part 1
PROPOSAL
On August 11, 2005, consent application 2005-B-32 - 2005-B-36 was deferred by the
Committee of Adjustment which would permit the creation of 5 residential lots. The deferral
allowed time for the Township to receive favourable comments from the Public Works
Department and from the County of Simcoe for the proposed five lots and for confirmation
that the lots can be serviced by the Robincrest Water System.
The purpose of applications 2005-B-32, 2005-B-33, 2005-B-34, 2005-B-35, 2005-B-36 is to
permit the creation of 5 new residential lots. Each lot to be created is proposed to have a lot
frontage of approximately 31.7 metres (104 feet), a lot depth of approximately 65 metres
(213.25 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.2 hectare (0.5 acres). The land proposed to
be retained would have a lot area of approximately 16.2 hectares (40 acres).
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Rural Settlement Area, Rural & Environmental Protection Two
Overlay
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) & Environmental Protection (EP) Zones
Previous Applications - None
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County - See attached correspondence
Public Works-
Building Department-The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and note
that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards.
Fire Department
Engineering Department-The cost of the up grade to the Robincrest Municipal Water System
is $9275 per lot. It is recommended that the upgrade costs be collected now and the
upgrades would be completed at the time the Thatcher Development proceeds. All cost to
connect to the system would be at the expense of the developer (Truax/Pickard)
It is the
The lands
cover. The
intent to create 5 new
to be are
have an
lots on Moonstone
vacant with a amount
East.
tree
OFFICIAL PLAN
The lands subject to the severances are designated Rural Settlement Area in the Oro-
Medonte Official Plan. Section 04.3 of the Township's Official Plan provides the following
direction to Committee in considering an application for land division in the Rural Settlement
Area Designation:
Land division by Plan of Subdivision, rather than by consent to sever, shall generally be
deemed necessary if:
a) the extension of an existing public road or the development of a new public
road is required to access the proposed lots; or,
b) the extension of a municipal water system is required to service the proposed
lots; or,
c) the area that is proposed to be developed is not considered to be infilling; or,
d) a Plan of Subdivision is required to ensure that the entire land holding or area
is developed in an orderly and efficient manner; or,
e) more than three new lots are being created.
As the policy states that land division by Plan of Subdivision rather than by consent to sever
shall generally be deemed necessary if more than three new lots are being created, it is the
Planning Departments opinion that the creation of five residential lots can be created through
consent rather than by Plan of Subdivision, especially in light of the fact no new road is
required. As a result, Committee shall consider the policies contained in Section 04.3.2, land
division by consent:
The creation of new lots for any permitted use by consent to sever is permitted,
provided a Plan of Subdivision is not required in accordance with Section 04.3.1
and provided the proposed lot:
a) fronts onto an existing public road that is maintained year round by a the
Township, County or Province;
b) will not cause a traffic hazard as a result of its location on a curve or a
hill;
c) can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and an appropriate
means of sewage disposal;
d) complies with the County of Simcoe access policies if the proposed lot is
to be accessed by a County road; and,
e) is not located on lands designated Rural Settlement Area in the Forest
Home or Prices Corners Settlement Areas.
If the proposed consent is granted, the severed lot fronts onto a public road that is
maintained year round by the County. Discussion with the Township Engineer revealed that
the applicants agreed to connect the proposed 5 lots to the Robincrest Municipal Water
System and the cost associated with the connection be at the expense of the applicants.
Furthermore, the County of Simcoe Transportation Maintenance Manager advised that the
minimum sight distances for all 5 proposed lots can be achieved and entrance permits will be
available provided all conditions are met and the lots are registered by the Based
on the comments above, it has been that a Plan of Subdivision is not necessary
and it that the proposed the intent of the
ZONING BY-LAW
The lands subject to the application are currently zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) in the
Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The proposed severed lots would be
required to be rezoned as a condition of consent to reflect its intended usage for residential
purposes. The proposed severed lots would meet the minimum requirement of the
Residential One (R1) Zone. The retained lot would continue to comply with the provisions of
the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) zone.
ANALYSIS
The proposal appears to meet all the lot creation criteria set out in Section D.4.3.1 of the
Official Plan. It is the Planning Departments recommendation that the Committee approve
the consent applications subject to conditions requested by the County as noted in their
September 6, 2006 correspondence and that the upgrade costs to the Robincrest Municipal
Water System be added as part of provisional approval.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee grant Provisional Consent for application 2005-B-32,
2005-B-33, 2005-B-34, 2005-B-35 & 2005-B-36 for the creation of five (5) residential lot
subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario
Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary-Treasurer;
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance
for each parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for each lot created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland
contribution;
4. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee in the amount of $4,286.96 (By-
law 2004-082) per new lot to the Township;
5. That the applicant pay $9275 per lot for the upgrade to the Robincrest Municipal
Water System;
6. That the Applicant shall transfer to the Corporation of the County of Simcoe
("County") a fee simple, unencumbered interest in the following:
a) A road widening along the entire frontage of the subject property adjacent to
County Road 19 (Moonstone Road East) to provide a 15.25 metre right-of-
way from the existing center line of County Road 19.
7. The shall submit to satisfaction the and
Engineering Division a preliminary reference plan (2 copies) which sets out the road
widening to be transferred to the County. approval, instruct the
surveyor to deposit the reference in Land Registry Simcoe
and request the to the with 3 the deposited
8. The Applicant shall submit to the County's Solicitor a deposit in the amount of
$1500.00 (Payable to: Graham, Wilson and Green in Trust), prior to services being
rendered. All costs associated with the land transfer, including costs relating to
surveying, legal fees and disbursements, agreements, GST, etc. shall be borne by
the Applicant. All documentation is to be prepared and registered by the County's
Solicitor and to be executed where required by the Applicant;
9. The Applicant shall submit entrance permit applications to the County of Simcoe to
permit residential entrances to the five proposed residential lots in accordance with
the requirements of County Entrance By-law 4206, as amended;
10. The Applicant shall submit conceptual plans for the development of each of the five
residential lots to ensure that all development is in accordance with the requirement
of the County Setback By-law 2840;
11. Prior to stamping of the deeds by the Township of Oro-Medonte, the Applicant shall
obtain written clearance from the County for the above noted conditions;
12. That the applicant apply for and obtain a re-zoning on the severed lands from the
Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone to the Residential One (R1) Zone to accurately reflect
the residential land use;
13. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year
from the date of the giving of the notice of decision.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
ACST(A)
Andy Karaiskakis
Planner
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
D::)
"
~~
,"
'"
,"
,"
,"
t~j
iNST.
..\ND
247'11i
1:r12814
:;",-,
,"
, ,
'"
16.1
!HST.
{';;';':'F~."1;.o.
(, (~
\.t.\,.
6
CONCESSION
N30'40'30'W
THE EAST AND WEST
93.643
HAL YES Of
THE EAST
HALf
Of
LOT
1.621
.,'g
Ole:.
!9~ _
o -
;0
.,;
...
w
"'
'0
...
b
'"
z
~
N 2'OO'SO_W
~~
~:;
."
'"
~
ii,
~
r...
~
I'.
':S
t~
'.
<~:
'T'
,.,
~
..g
-
MJ'i:6u.,--
c:;
~~;
/
/
/
:::.
IiJ:~
N
.,
~
'"
."
,-
:n
iJ~~ff
()
(.J
<'
<.
t.:.1
m
P:: rn
o rY
&l ......
> .0
P:: ~ >-<
::;l",W 0
m .~ :> C2
~H~ <:...i><
p:l "';:J S8 E-< j:,;l '"
Oilrn -,ZO"''''
~.g ;}, Ot:ilg:sg
!;I::~I"""'\;!!:X: .-'C\IC\1
>-< 00:: 1'-1'-
L~ Z 1io:lt:il~cbcb
c-_ u; E-<otOtO
tH. -< 0 <: ...:l ,,"0
...:l~.....:l t"\'~ lnln
ll.o ......0 00
r:tl 5 0 ...:l t:.t:.
:Ir~;:;::: 0
E-oo...... U
..... < -<
~ E-<
p:l- Z.
:a 0
o
o
we!
=,'
4-g:
~@
<-
Un
(/l_
,..
co.,;
0-'
wd
"'.
uW
WO
:r:~
U
,...
co~
!~
o:~
o
(/l
'0:
0
,.. "-
IS! 0
'" 0:' ,..
". z::>::lt <
-Vl~ 0
ow'" J:
~~ ~~eJ ...
'"
{r",\ ... ,0 N
u"'z W
,-- r:tl wU::> :r:
~:: 0:< ...
E-o 0:","" Z
(!} < 8~~ 0
!~: U ,,,,>::It 0
..... 0:0:(/l ~
r:.
- <iil5 w
...J
E-o Zwi= a.
.- P:: <J:< ~
r:tl itt-s 0
. . l" u gl
, ". U oil't:> '"
.., m ~:i:ti <d ~I
.., 3:g
~, ii=: ,..w"" '"
,~ !;( ~U:I: ,..'" :olw
, , 0 z'" ~,:
'-" J: n:<o ",'"
>- ... ::>..ClZ ::>0: lXlc5
r:tl ,.. "'~< ",<
> 4- (/lU... ::> <
'" wZ ~I
P:: IUU J:<
~ P.l ...<< .....,
~ 't,)" ,.... ,.... ~I
S - ~
{J)
'-,
I
I
I
1
I
\
I
I
\
I
I
~
t~i
~~i
--
td
'"
""
:r:
w ...
... (/l
< ,..""
-oJ l.&J LL.Z
:;)w~ ii:::J
~~~ ~8
ULL.Z 0:1:
OOj:WI-(I)
t-eJ-gE~~
80(ft:O~W
~"~-j~~~
a::~~r;;~ffi
~~5~5~
w:X: C:tnU"l
o::.I-Cl~<1-
~cfi~eti
4J~<LL.>-2}
;!;zool;!;!(/l
~~~~gsZ5
;'iot-~(/)O::
o ci::eoQ
~~~8g~
~e?'5!<no~
~~~~Zb
~~t-~~~
icn~~6~
~~~5 w
(f1<3:g
"
~3
V"?u
V"?u
~
~
Co
l'-......
<
VI?
u*
IS
,
@
z
CD
~
z
~ ~
~ M~
I?I (0
/ ~I
~
~ MO
~
Vl?u
Vl?u
~
a:
~
~
IC
l
Karaiskakis, Andy
From: Karaiskakis, Andy
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:32 PM
To: 'CMeile@county.simcoe.on.ca'
Cc: GMarek@county.simcoe.on.ca; Hoppe, Bruce
Subject: RE: Consent Applications 2005-B-32 - 2005-B-36 - Proposed creation of 5 residential lots - 128
Moonstone Road East
Hi Christian,
Thanks for the correspondence regarding the proposed severances off of County Road 19. I will include this letter
in the file and proceed with the applications appropriately.
The County will be notified of any decisions made by the Committee of Adjustment.
Thanks again.
Andy
From: CMeile@county.simcoe.on.ca [mailto:CMeile@county.simcoe.on.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 11:53 AM
To: Karaiskakis, Andy
Cc: GMarek@county.simcoe.on.ca
Subject: Consent Applications 2005-B-32 - 2005-B-36 - Proposed creation of 5 residential lots - 128 Moonstone
Road East
Please forward to Andy Karaiskakis;
This note is to confirm that the applicant has in fact contacted the County of Simcoe with respect to one of the
County's conditions dealing with entrance permits for the above referenced proposed lots.
Please be advised that minimum sight distances for all 5 proposed lots can in fact be achieved. Entrance Permits
will be available provided all conditions are met and the lots are registered by the Township.
Please contact myself or Greg Marek with any further questions.
Regards,
Christian Meile,
Transportation Maintenance Manager
of Simcoe
.
12 June 2006
I
Ms. Lisa Truax
128 Moonstone Road East
Moonstone ON
LOK 1 NO
Dear Ms. Truax,
Re:
Severance Applications 2005-8-32 - 2005-8-36, Concession 8, East Part Lot
16, RP 51R-24483 (Medonte)
Further to your phone enquiry, this letter has been drafted to provide you with an update on the
status of the above noted applications regarding the proposed creation of 5 new residential lots.
The subject lands currently have an area of approximately 42 acres and have frontage along
Moonstone Road. On August 11, 2005, the Committee of Adjustment deferred the above noted
applications to allow time for the Township to receive favourable comments from the County of
Simcoe and for confirmation that the lots can be serviced by the Robincrest Water System.
To date, the Township is in receipt of correspondence dated August 9, 2005 from the County of
Simcoe, a copy of which is attached for your information. While the County has provided
conditions of approval, it also states that the availability of sight distances for the proposed lots
should be provided prior to approval. It is therefore recommended that the County be contacted
in order to satisfy this requirement in order to ensure that safe access can be provided to the
proposed new lots.
In respect of servicing, be advised that the proposed lots are designated Rural Settlement Area
in the Oro-Medonte Official Plan. Section 04.3.1 of the Township's Official Plan provides the
following direction in considering an application for land division in the Rural Settlement Area
Designation:
"The creation new lots for any permitted use by consent to sever is permitted, provided a Plan
of Subdivision is required in accordance Section 04.3.1 and provided the proposed
is maintained year
a
on a curve or a
an appropriate means
access
if
is to
e) is not located on lands designated Rural Settlement Area in the Forest Home
or Prices Corners Settlement Areas."
The Provincial Policy Statement which came into effect on March 1, 2005 provides policy
direction on matters related to land use planning and development. The Provincial Policy
Statement also sets policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land. Section
1.6.4.2 of the PPS states that Municipal sewage services and municipal water services are the
preferred form of servicing for settlement areas. Furthermore, the PPS requires that municipal
decisions shall be consistent with the PPS.
Comments from the Engineering Department state that the capacity of the Robincrest Water
System which services the community of Moonstone will need to be confirmed to determine
whether or not the system can service five more additional lots. After discussions with Mr. Keith
Mathieson, Director of Engineering and Environmental Services, he advises that the Robincrest
Water System requires upgrading for the proposed five lots.
Given this policy framework, subject to confirmation that appropriate and safe access can be
provided from the County, it is staff's position that the proposed new lots must be serviced via
the municipal water system which will be a condition of consent.
I trust this provides an update on this file. If you require further information please contact this
office.
Yours truly,
cc. Bruce Hoppe, Director or Building & Planning Services
Keith Mathieson, Director of Engineering and Environmental Services
County of Simcoe, Corporate Services Department, Transportation Division
1219/1216/21211216 15:3121
ENGINEERING COUNTY OF SIMCOE ~ 487121133
FAX COVER SHEET
County of Simcoe
Transportation and Engineering Division
Administraiion Centre
1110 Highway 26
Midhum, Ontario
Telephone: 1705)726-9300
Fax: (705)727-7984
TO:
Andy Karalskakis
Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro-Medonte
Fax: (705) 487-0133
fROM:
Greg Marek, Planning/Engineering Technician
DATE:
September 6, 2006
NO. 236 [;101
SU8JECT: Consent Application File No. 's 2005-8-32 io 2005-8-36 (Pickard and Truax)
No. of pages (inCluding cover): 3
Comments:
Dear Mr. Karaiskol<isl
Please see attached comment letter.
If you have
questions, please do not hesitate to call.
09/06/2006
15:30
ENGINEERING COUNTY OF SIMCOE ~ 4870133
NO. 236
[;102
The Corporation of the
County of
Simcoe
Phone: (705) 726-9300 Fax: (70S) 127.7984
E.mail: fQads@county.simtoe.Ol1.Cll
-
1110 Highway 26, AdmiuistIation Centre
Midbum, ON LOL lXO
Corporate Services Department
Transportation and Engineering Division
September 6, 2006
H BYFAXONl.Y""'"
Andy Karaiskakis, Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro-Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario LOL 2><0
Dear Mr. Karaiskakis:
RE: Consent Application File No.'s 2005-8-32. 2005-B-33. 2005-6-34, 2005.8-35 and
2005-B.36 (Ted Pickard and Lisa Truax) .
128 County Road 19 (Moonstone Road East), E. Part of Lot 16. Concession 81 former
Township of Medonte
Thank you for circulating the above-noted application to the County of Simcoe for review. The County
of Simcoe has no objection to the approval of the application, provided the following conditions are
included:
1. The applicant shalllransfer to the Corporation of the County of Simcoe ("County") a fee
simple, unencumbered interest in the following:
a. A read widening along the entire frontage of the subject property adjacent to County
Road 19 (Moonstone R.oad East) to provide a 15.25 metre right-of-way from the
existing centre line of County Road 19.
2. The applicant shall submit to the satisfaction of the County's Transportation and Engineering
Division a preliminary reference plan (2 copies) which sets out the road widening to be
transferred to the County. Upon approval, the County will instruct the surveyor to deposit the
reference plan in the Land Registry Office for Simcoe County and request the surveyor
provide the County 3 copies of the deposited
3. Applicant submit to the Solicitor a in the
(payable to: and Green In Trust), to services being
costs associated with the land transfer, costs relating to
etc.
09/06/2006
15:30
ENGINEERING COUNTY OF SIMCOE ~ 4870133
NO. 236
[;103
Consent Applications 200S-B-32 to 200S-B-36 - County Comments - pa.ge 2
4. The Applicant shall submit entrance permit applications to the County of Simcoe to permit
residential entrances to the five proposed residential lots in accordance with the requirements
of County Entrance By-law 4206, as amended.
5. The applicant shall submit conceptual plans for the development of each of the five residential
lots to ensure that all development is in accordance with the requirements of the County
Setback By-law 2840.
6. Prior to stamping of the deeds by the TownShip of Oro-Medonte, the Applicant shall obtain
written clearance from the County for the above-noted conditions,
The existing right-ot-way adjacent to 126 County Road 19 is approximately 20 metres wide. The
reason that the County has requested a road widening is that in accordance with Schedule 5.5 of the
County Official Plan, the required basic right-of-way width for County Road 19 is 30.5 metres.
The County's Setback By-laW 2840 requires that all above and below grade structures and buildings
be located a minimum of 85 feet (25.9 metres) from the centre line of a County Road 21 or 35 feet
(10.67 metres) from the nearest limit of the road allowance, whichever distance is greater. This by-
law also applies to septic systems and wells. The 10.67 metre setback requirement applies to the
new road allowance, after the road widening has been taken in accordance with condition #1.
The applicant has submitted entrance permit applieations for residential entrances to the 'five
proposed lots and it has been confirmed that the minimum sight distance requirements identified
within the County E.ntrance By-law can be achieved. Entrance permits will be available provided that
all the county and Township conditions of consent approval are satisfied and the lots are registered
by the Township.
The above information is intended to be comprehensive and all inClusive, however. over time
cIrcumstances and requirements are subject to change. Additional information. research or study
may be required to be provided. Policy circumstances, (Provincial, County or local) may also
change. The applicant will be required to satisfy any such requirements.
In accordance with Sedion 4.11 ot the County of Simcoe Official Plan, this application is also subject
to all other applicable Provincial, County and local municipal legislation, policies and by-laws.
Please fOlWard a copy of the decision. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
ext.1
II:l
SelJeranca &
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
Ruth & Karen Moon
2006-B-21
373 Moon Point Drive, Concession 3, Part Lot 16 (Orillia)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2006-8-21 is to permit the creation of a new residential lot. The land
to be severed is proposed to have a lot frontage of 244.7 metres (803 feet) along Moon Point
Drive, a lot depth of approximately 45.7 metres (150 feet) and a lot area of approximately 1.2
hectares (2.76 acres). The land proposed to be retained would have a lot frontage along Moon
Point Drive of 54.8 metres (180 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.6 hectares (1.48 acres).
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Restricted Rural
Zoning By-law 97-95 -Shoreline Residential Exception (SR*2) Zone
Previous Applications - None
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County
Public Works-
Building Department-The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and note that the
proposal appears to meet the minimum standards
Engineering Department- No concerns
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
It is the applicant's intent to create a new lot fronting on Moon Point Drive, as shown on the
attached. The lands proposed to be severed are currently vacant while the retained lands have
an existing single detached dwelling. Both lots have a significant amount of tree cover.
OFFICIAL PLAN
The subject lands are designated Restricted Rural in the Oro-Medonte Official Plan. Section
D11.3.1 states the following:
011.3.1
The creation of new lots for residential purposes
The creation of new lots for residential purposes shall not be permitted on
lands in the Restricted Rural designation, unless the lot is for a bona fide
farmer in accordance with the policies of Section 02.3.1. The creation of new
lots in this is not
This was included within the Official Plan in 997 to ensure that lands that are
to the two urban Barrie and are from
development, to discourage the development of scattered residential, commercial and industrial
uses in the area surrounding Barrie and Orillia and to maintain and preserve the rural character of
the area by clearly defining the urban boundary of the Cities of Barrie and Orillia.
The current Official Plan does not contemplate the creation of new lots for residential purposes in
the Restricted Rural designation, unless the lot is for a retiring bona farmer. This section is
proposed to be deleted by the Township to comply with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
which came into effect March 1, 2005.
Official Plan Amendment #17 which was a general Amendment to the Official Plan was adopted
by Council in August 2003, approved by the County of Simcoe on November 10, 2004 and is
awaiting final approval by the Ontario Ministry Board. The Restricted Rural designation is not
proposed to be changed, therefore the proposal also is not in keeping with OPA #17.
ANAL YSIS
Notwithstanding the fact that the severed and retained lot would comply with the provisions of the
Shoreline Residential Zone, the intent of the Official Plan with respect to character and form of
development takes precedence when considering an application for consent. In this case, the
current Official Plan protects lands adjacent to Barrie and Orillia from development and to
discourage the development of scattered residential, commercial and industrial uses in the area
surrounding Barrie and Orillia. Given that the proposal involves dividing a 1.8 hectare lot into two
by way of consent, the creation of a new infilling lot does not conform with the intent of the Official
Plan and should be refused.
Although only one new lot is being proposed, the application would not be in keeping with the
existing Official Plan nor the policy directives in the recently approved OPA #17 and therefore
would not constitute good planning.
CONCLUSION
The application should not be supported as follows:
1 . Conformity with Section 011.3.1 of the Official Plan is not achieved;
2. The proposed new lot would not be in keeping with the Provincial Policy Statement;
3. The proposal does not constitute good planning;
4. Conformity with OPA #17 is not achieved.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee not grant Provisional Consent to application 2006-B-21 for
the reasons outlined herein.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
RPP
Senior Planner
Subject Property - 373 Moon Point Drive
Ii
legend
o 25 50 100 Meters
I I I I I I I I
Retained Lands
Severed Lands
a e mcoe
FROM
FAX NO. 9052570087
Sep. 07 2006 11:40PM P1
Sept. 7, 2006
PLEASE ENSURE THIS GETS
THE MEETING ON SEPT 1
2006
1 0:50AM
Whom it May Concern:
Re: Concession 3, Pt. Lot 16 (Former Township of Orillia) 373 Moon Point Drive
Due to prior commitments we will be unable to attend the hearing on September 1
2006. However, we would like to express our concerns regarding the proposed permit to
create a new residential lot
The area is a very unique with all of its rolling hills and vacant land. The reason we
purchased our property was due to the "up-north" atmosphere. We feel allowing this new
residnetallot to be developed would hinder this atmosphere.
When we purchased our property we investigated the proposed development of the
area and this property was not designated in the original plan. Had it been it would have
altered our decision on purchasing the property.
the issue the water table been addressed? We feel that on
would have a negative impact on the water table in the area. Whose responsibility is it to
ensure that it will not have a negative impact?
What is our guarantee that this lot will not be subdivided? With a lot this size one has
to wonder whether or not it is meant for a single dwelling or multiple dwellings.
We trust our concerns will be addressed and we await your reply.
1
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
September 14, 2006
Alfred & Beverley Bard
2006-A-27
Concession 14, South Part Lot 2 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are proposing to construct a 1,500 to 2,000 ft2 single detached dwelling at the
above location. The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural/Rural *Exception 15, and
is described in the Township Zoning By-law as follows:
7.15 *15 - LANDS ADJACENT TO SETTLEMENT AREAS
Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, only uses that existed on the
effective date of this By-law are permitted on those lands denoted by the svmbol *15
on the schedules to this By-law.
As the subject property is vacant, the applicants are requesting relief from Section 7.15 of
Zoning By-law 97-95 to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling as well as
accessory buildings/structures.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural Exception Fifteen (A/RU*15) Zone
Previous Applications - none
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department-
Building Department - The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and note
that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards. Also note that this is not approval
for any particular development proposal.
Engineering Department - No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
subject
Broadview
has a road 280 metres 8
approximately 198 metres (650 feet) along Bass Line and a lot area
3.8 hectares (9.5 acres). The lands are a vacant farm with
intent to construct a single detached
Does the
to the
intent
Plan sets out
Rural
.. To maintain and create attractive communities with suitable amenities.
.. To ensure that settlement areas are developed in a logical and cost-effective
manner.
Committee should also be aware that the subject property has been redesignated from the
Rural Settlement Area to Shoreline as part of the Official Plan review (OPA#17). OPA #17
which was a general Amendment to the Official Plan was adopted by Council in August
2003, approved by the County of Simcoe on November 10, 2004 and is awaiting final
approval by the Ontario Municipal Board. It is intended that the subject lands not be included
in the Prices Corners Settlement Area and therefore no intent to develop the lands for future
expansion in the Prices Corners Rural Settlement Area.
The applicant's proposal does not appear to offend these principles given that the variance
will accommodate development in a manner that is generally consistent with the rural
character. On the basis that a single detached dwelling as well as accessory uses is a
permitted use on lands designated Rural Settlement Area, the proposal is considered to
conform with the intent of the Official Plan.
Under the proposed OPA #17 policies, it is noted that further development of this property for
additional lots is likely. Such further land division would require a rezoning to reflect the
intended usage.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Rural Exception Fifteen (A/RU*15). Exception
Fifteen permits only uses that existed on the effective date of the By-law, in this case, vacant
land. The existing zoning does not permit a dwelling to be constructed on the subject property,
therefore a minor variance is being requested by the applicants. Notwithstanding Exception
15, the existing lot exceeds the By-law requirement for lot area and lot frontage in an AlRU
Zone for a residential use.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The nature of development proposed appears modest and will not lead to over development
of the lot. The proposed variance should provide for a form of development that is suitable
and consistent with the surrounding area as the property is located adjacent to the Prices
Corners Settlement Area and would be adjacent to and across from existing homes.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the proposed dwelling would not adversely affect the character of the
residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor in nature.
The
tests
a new
as follows:
on
four
1. The
is
to
with
intent
Plan.
2. The proposal is considered to conform with the intent of the Zoning By-law as the
proposed dwelling will meet the minimum required setbacks from the property lines
for the A/RU Zone
3. The proposed variance should provide for a form of development that is suitable and
consistent with the surrounding area as the property is located adjacent to the Prices
Corners Settlement Area and would be adjacent to and across from existing homes.
4. The proposed variance is considered to be minor in nature.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee Approve Minor Variance 2006-A-27 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided
for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; and,
2. That the applicant obtains approval for a Part 8 Sewage Application from the
Township of Oro-Medonte Building Department.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Karaiskakis HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
OJ
o
u
E
.-
(/)
"-
o
>
.....
c
::s
o
u
.,
..
...
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
September 14, 2004
Kimberley Olynyk
2006-A-28
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct a 115.94 square metre (1248 square foot) detached
accessory building, consisting of a 4-bay garage for vehicle parking. The applicant is requesting
relief of the following provisions from Zoning By-law 97-95:
Section 5.1.6 Maximum Floor Area: The maximum floor area of anyone detached
accessory building or structure, excluding boathouses, is 70 square metres (753.5
square feet).
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Previous Applications None
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Municipal Works/Roads - no concerns
Building Department -
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority -
Engineering Department - no concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 65 metres (213 feet), a shoreline
frontage of approximately 270 metres (886 feet), a lot depth of approximately 192 metres (630
feet) and a land area (excluding the "water lot" portion) of 1.78 ha ~4.4 acres). The applicant is
proposing to build a detached 4 car garage with an area of 115.94 m (1248 n\
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Do the variances conform with the
intent of the Official Plan?
The is designated Shoreline and zoned Shoreline Residential. The proposed
which would the construction of a detached accessory to a residential use is in
with the intent of shoreline within the Official Plan.
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
One of the purposes of restricting the floor area of accessory buildings is to ensure that such
structures maintain a sense of scale with residential uses, and to prevent the overdevelopment of
lots within residential neighbourhoods. The subject property is heavily treed, and the proposed
garage will be adequately buffered from neighbouring residences. As well, the property slopes in
a manner from the road, down to Lake Simcoe, in that the proposed garage will not likely be
visible from Barrie Terrace, or by neighbours to the east and west. Further, the proposed
structure meets and exceeds the front yard, interior side yard, and Lake Simcoe shoreline
setbacks, as prescribed. Therefore, the variance would be in keeping with the general intent of
the Zoning By-law.
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The applicant's lot is a very large shoreline residential property, and the proposed building
constitutes a permitted and compatible use within the context of the surrounding neighbourhood.
On this basis, the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject
lot.
Are the variances minor?
On the basis that the size of the garage in contrast to the proposed dwelling appears to be
reasonable, and the existence of adequate natural buffering from neighbouring properties, the
proposed variance should not adversely affect the character of the shoreline residential, and is
considered to be minor.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposed variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Committee grant minor variance 2006-A-28, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the applicant obtain approval from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority, ifrequired;
2. That the floor area of the proposed garage be no greater than 115.94 square metres
(1248 square feet);
3. That the appropriate building permits be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13 and that building on the dwelling and shed
commence at the same time;
of which is
Reviewed
MCI P RPP
Senior Planner
Adam B.URPI
Technician
fi~"'L ?ROi"(<! I, p(P<)f<l
PLAN ('J
lOT A
AND PART or
WATERLOT FRONT OF lOT A
REGISTERED PLAN 663
IN rH( C(()C!'<,o,PHIC rOVlNSl'!tp or ORO
IN THE
TOWtlSH1P Of ORO-MEDOIHE
IN THE:
COUNTY Of Sl"COE
SCALE 1 500
..... $'Y':L "LA N
f'"~'''-~'
/
I t~.
/ If;
/ ">.f
k1 ..~/
I ;;:: .~~
J !~i
7 u ,
/ .
// /
///.
~.~
/,,~0
. " ":>
,/":~ .f;r
/," &-~ ;,~,.' .,>
/r \' \. o~ ~...~.J
// \. Gd' ~.~>~
//~ \ d ,(l~~ ') '> ./'
/ ' . <. .,
~ ,{J ~ ~ . <.' t1'
'\ Ij".f''' ct' .....",e.
"
/
RUOY MAK SURV(YlNG
:moo
ve-- L
., \
~~::.::':':':'''''~l
~~r,., ".J6~'-;N
"'f~~
. '.' ~,
/~
, .
lr
;,10.1 tl'
;/.
I:l
7"
/"-~:;
:/r:;
I /
/ /
/ -p'.
( REGISTERED
\
\ f'
C' \ I .~, 7--/
~ f(~ ,/- <\~= p'~'
( ....)...-':::~~"-- -'"
\\''--'~~ //~).)d~",
..?:=(. .., "f1l ,,,.'
j,
<. ~...,
~ "//
). /
, .... "y
y;..
\\ ~{ ";
\ .\. (, ,~I/
\ ...... "'" ~"_2"J6
. \ ~.. .,,,1 ""~ . , . , , I '
.~ //
'~L
LOT
~Of~
I
PAR T
WATER
o
""::;"0_",
A
K
E
~
'-
'"
M {C
f
o
5
I
SUR\I('>'ClR'S REAL PRoPE1H"V l'i1:J'Ol'!. {PAiH:2) REPORT SOLIMARY
-"
-,
o
T
i,
"
S'''-28.S, / I
NCP&osra;rRf<(lfJ
ler A. RCOSfPln} PUH 6dJ !
i
. '
i ~~
:. !f
; ~
o T
8
A
G
e-
663
L
Ii P<AN
5 I 1; - ;' "' 5 7"
C.L.S. 55696
VIA TER LOT
1
';/
~~'!...~'S CERTIfiCATE
,C(1IIllf'1MAt.
II p,r.; SlIIN[T""flJ\.M Me CCJI:fItctA/'IG '"
.occ~""H~IoC'I".nc:SJfM:1O'l'S
toC1A1ClMM0lAJ,1lO'l$.u(l(\IJlCl()fn<(1II.
11 '"f.~' IIA$ ct\W'ltltD c-. M iO+lOA' 01
~J: -. Z..-'"
,)u_>=z_
~,
Cd
CJollAll!Ol.MID:u"/'lII!:YClII
~P\..AlIIl$l<IOrv.r.uoI.ML"~"rM"''SItA/,.1
[
etAAlNG HOt(
a~AR:(JlS~u<:)AR(RO'"tPMtDrol><
tl>$l'(A..'U>>llrOlP4IH:t!>l.Ml511"-1'4J$AS~00I
!:..o.lOl"UoHAIOIl..AWO!;A._or.n77..3Q....
~
.
o
,.
.
-~,
"""..
"""~,
"""~.
Q'D<01li:$ lIIlIIlWtS$
~1t5n:~
..!:::.z
0; 0
. UZ :;:0
-. -j
6. :c
rr1
r
rr1
<
~
5
z
~u !
a~ I
I
I
I
0J
I II
UDuUD~
DDDDD~
I! DDDDD~
UDuUD~
~ i~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ n~ ~!l? ~~
:l: ~~ C) ~ ~ ~i :l:~
! "'a~ ~~ ~~ ~ a ~~ b
!:l ~~ ",Iii i5 ~; ill !:l ~~ !filii
"'a "'8 0 5.... "'8
:l: z :l: 0
r
!:l~
i i ~ f
,,-
~ -t ~ 11!
~ E m
! ~ <
,. 0 ]:>
~ 0) -g
2
if (j>
I
, 2'-o~
20'-0'
2'-o~ ,
i
I
N
~
~ \J N. ~
>= ,
~ "'- TRUSSES 0, ,
::z , " .s;.
b, o. "
-.
N @) J.,
"
"\
...
"
"', --!
,
~
SLOPE 3' TO DOOR '"
<t ,
'" ll'
" @
"',
;::;. ~ '"
....
... ~ ,
" 0, 0,
0,
,.
TRUSSES tN
" 'i'
"'. " i:l'
, @
"',
-'
"
~
~ @) -:.
.l; ,
....
:-
~
,
"'. N .s;.
, "
"', 0,
".
~
J..
~Ijl ::1:1
1111
1111 11111
11111 IWI
IWI II U
uu
2' O' 16'-0' 2'-0'
"'
5'-6' 14'-6"
I II
", ~
I a ~ j!! ~
. ~ r
" r
:i' <:: e 11 !i~ i iiii~ nliiii~ !liliii~ I !
~ E r ii~ m ;!;f;~ rn
!o. r:( !i
, 0 ~IUii ~ ~
0, Co i'I,1 G
i!i i!i ~~ ~ !i ~ ~ ~I ~H
iH ~ - 'I _ ~ '1_ Q~
" i 'I~ ~i ~:;i ~i \">
~ ~- \">-
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
September 14, 2006
Dean Miles
2006-A-29
6353 Line 4 North, Concession 5, West Part Lot 22, 51 R-4566, Part 2 & 3 (Medonte)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct 2 decks at the rear of an existing single detached
dwelling; the first deck is proposed to be located at the rear of the detached garage, and has
an area of 40 square metres (430 square feet). The second proposed deck, at the rear of the
master bedroom, is proposed to have an area of 6 square metres (64.5 square feet). The
eastern portion of the property contains Environmental Protection (EP) Zoning. The applicant
is requesting the following relief from Section 5.28 of Zoning By-law 97-95:
Setback to EP Zone
(ReQuired)
30 Metres (98.4 feet)
Setback to EP Zone
(Proposed)
Deck #1: 10 metres (32 feet)
Deck #2: 20 metres (65 feet)
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Agricultural & Environmental Protection One
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) and Environmental Protection
Zones
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department-
Building Department- The Township Building Department has reviewed this application and
note that an Ontario Land Surveyor to pin foundation and provide verification to Township
Building Dept.
Engineering Department - No concerns
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority-
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
a lot
1.44 hectares (3.56
121
The has a street
of approximately 189 metres (620 feet) and a lot area
is
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Agricultural and Environmental Protection One in the Official
Plan. The primary function of the Agricultural designation is to protect land suitable for
agricultural production from development and land uses unrelated to agricultural and to
preserve and promote the agricultural character of the Township and the maintenance of the
open countryside. Permitted uses in the Agricultural designation includes single detached
dwellings as well as accessory uses. In reviewing Schedule B-Components of the
Environmental Protection One & Two Designations, it appears that the Environmental
Protection located on the lands is part of the Vasey Swamp, a wetland, and also Significant
Woodlands, one of the components of the Environmental Protection One Designation. As the
existing dwelling and proposed decks will maintain the character of the rural community and
are on lands which do not involve agricultural activity, the proposal appears to conform with
the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
In assessing the issue of compliance with the Zoning By-law, the proposed decks should not
detract from the overall character of the lot and surrounding natural features being the
mature trees being located to the east of the dwelling. One of the purposes of regulating
structures being built within the limits of Environmental Protection Zone is to maintain and
enhance the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system, to ensure that development
does not occur on lands that are unstable or susceptible to flooding and to ensure that
development does not occur on hazardous slopes. In reviewing Schedule B-Components of
the Environmental Protection One & Two Designations, it appears that the Environmental
Protection located on the lands is part of the Vasey Swamp, not a Provincially Significant
Wetland but classified as Other Wetlands (EP1). The map does indicate the mature trees on
the lot as Significant Woodlands. At the time of writing this report, the application has been
circulated to the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority who has not commented on the
proposal to date. Based on site inspection, the area appears to be high and dry and the
closest corner of the deck is setback approximately 10 metres from the EP Zone Boundary.
On the basis of the above, the proposed decks would therefore conform with the general
intent of the Zoning By-law subject to NVCA endorsement which will be recommended as a
condition of approval.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The nature of development proposed appears to be appropriate, as this would permit two
deck additions to be located at the rear of the dwelling. The granting of this variance would
not lead to the over development of the lot and would be in keeping with the rural character
of the area. On this basis, the variance proposed is appropriate for the desirable
development of the lot.
Is the
As is aware, "minor" is not on a
that the proposal is and would not appear to
the variance is
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance as follows:
1 . The existing dwelling and proposed decks will maintain the character of the rural
community and are on lands which do not involve agricultural activity and as
such, the proposal appears to conform with the intent of the policies contained in
the Official Plan.
2. The proposed decks conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law subject
to NVCA endorsement which will be recommended as a condition of approval.
3. The proposed variance is considered to be minor, subject to NVCA approval
4. The granting of this variance would not lead to the over development of the lot
and would be in keeping with the rural character of the area
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee approve minor variance 2006-A-29 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed addition be in conformity with the
sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
2. That the applicant obtain a permit (or approval) from the Nottawasaga Valley
Conservation Authority under the Conservation Authorities Act, if required;
3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to
pouring of the foundation so that
a. Deck 1 be located no closer than 10 metres (33 feet) and Deck 2 be located no
closer than 20 metres (66 feet) from the Environmental Protection Zone
Boundary; and,
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act RS.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
A y Karaiskakis HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
RPP
N!'W
OLO
ALLOWANCE BETWEEN CONCESSIONS 4 !1 5
<iI\I
"!.
::100'00' (OH') & MEA$.)
\.e'
3
z
;J:l
~
~
jll,
jll,
~~,-
242!lG '
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
September 14, 2006
Dianne Smith
2006-A-30
65 Barrie Terrace, Conc. 1, Plan 1, Part Lots 15 & 16 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct a two-storey addition and porch onto the front of an
existing single detached dwelling. The addition is proposed to have a ground floor area of 36.4
square metres (392 square feet). The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning
By-law 97-95:
Zone: Shoreline Residential
Minimum Required Interior Side Yard Setback
ReQuired
3.0 m (9.84 ft)
Proposed
1.9 m (6.2 ft)
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation -Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential Limited Service with Holding Provision (RLS(H))
Previous Applications -
(space is
for
to make notes)
Public Works Department-
Building Department -The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and
comment that the applicant to verify that the sewage system meets the minimum required
setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code and that an Ontario Land Surveyor to pin
for setbacks to septic and property line and provide verification to Building Department
Engineering Department - No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 15.5 metres (51 feet), a shoreline
frontage of approximately 15.2 metres (50 feet) and a lot area of approximately 969
(10,430 ft2). The lands are currently accessed by a private right of way and are occupied by
a single detached dwelling and a detached garage located in the front yard. The applicant is
proposing construct a two storey to the front an area of
approximately 196 m2 17 with an attached porch. The second storey will
towards the lakeside will not encompass the rear portion
the Great has an area 23 (247 which
The intends to the at the lakeside the
The reason for minor
with the minimum
as the
the
metres
from the
does not
for the east lot
lot line. As
the
shown on
as
is that the
side setback 3
2.1 metres
a minor variance for
encroachment into the required side lot line. It should be noted that as the existing dwelling
is not parallel with the interior lot line, therefore the proposed addition will not maintain the
existing 2.1 metres (7 feet); the closest corner of the addition will be set back 1.9 metres (6.2
feet) from the side lot line. It is the intent of the applicant to attach the detached garage to the
dwelling with a porch and covered breezeway.
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the
Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives:
.. To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area.
CD To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline.
The requested variances for the additions would appear to maintain the character of the
shoreline and surrounding residential area as the proposed additions will not be located
closer to the Lake than the existing dwelling, and has a limited vegetative buffer from the
neighbouring lots. Therefore, the proposal would conform with the intent of the policies
contained in the Official Plan.
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject lot is currently zoned Residential Limited Service with a Holding Provision (RLS-
H). One of the purposes or goals of maintaining side yard setbacks in residential areas is to
ensure privacy between properties and provide between the front and rear yards. The
existing dwelling complies with the 3 metre (9.8 feet) minimum interior side setback required
in Zoning By-law 97-95 from the westerly property line. The site inspection revealed that the
mature trees on the easterly lot will provide a form of privacy for the subject lands and will
have little or no impact on the intent of the by-law to provide a low density residential
character to the lot or the subdivision. Furthermore, a two storey dwelling is a permitted use
in the RLS Zone. It should be noted that the subject lands are within the Lake Simcoe
Region Conservation Authority regulated area, therefore at the time of issuance of a building
permit, the applicants would be required to contact the LSRCA for approval.
On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of
the By-law.
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed additions would appear to be appropriate for the
desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding shoreline residential
area. Given that the dwelling including the proposed additions would take up approximately
13% of the total lot area, the proposal would provide for a form of development that is
suitable and consistent the surrounding neighbourhood and would not lead to the over
development of lot.
the
not
the
to the
area, the
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed variances for a two storey addition, the change in roofline at the lakeside of
the dwelling and the attached porch with a covered breezeway generally satisfies the 4 tests
of a minor variance as follows:
1. The existing dwelling and proposed additions will maintain the character of the
shoreline residential and as such, the proposal appears to conform with the intent
of the policies contained in the Official Plan.
2. The proposed additions conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law as
minor additions which will have little or no impact on the surrounding neighbours.
3. The proposed variance is considered to be minor
4. The granting of these variances would not lead to the over development of the lot
and would be in keeping with the shoreline character of the area
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee Approve Minor Variance 2006-A-30 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided
for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13;
2. That the applicant satisfy the comments made by the Township Building Department;
3. That the proposed addition be no closer than 1.9 m (6.2 ft)) from the interior side lot
line;
4. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to
pouring of the foundation by way of survey/ real property report prepared by an Ontario
Land Surveyor; and,
5. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application
and on the sketches submitted with the application dated August 24, 2006 and
approved by the Committee.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Andy Karaiskakis HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
RPP
~~
.. fT1
"
";;;u
~~
~ z
"
q
: \\coddl\Cod\Custom CADD\Projeds\05-77 - Horold
LAST UPDATE : Aug
~^
~~
S-o
~~
~Z
~
r:-..
~~r
.____ l" s~&ty
~ DE-
.€l5Ge-~
1i'4~ ____.
z
'"
. ,;;
'"
..:
. q
'"
'"
"
'"
q
z
'"
,,;
'"
~ e
'"
~
"
~
:l> r-
~ ()
0; -!
r-
0 .....
-1 ,,0 CJl;:!1
CJ-::-;Cl<: R;>~
()C)~:r!
(j) (Jl c:: ~ l"1"j 0
<: ~ "lJ .....-.,
-! Y) r- g; ClJ\r)
-<:::t: ~ c:: ~~
-- :r!
---- lJ~ rii
::.;<,!) ~-(
~?;; ~o
---- "lJ -1-"
~~ ~;;:
[::]0 ::l)
r-:l> ~ -I
------- ..::::!.$;
\r) r-
\r) 0
------- ~ l;j
~
-I
~rrl
,i
b, !;2
::;
o
z
",,,,
j!!;J;
",'"
0'"
~~
."
!ll
: \ \codd1\Ccd\Custom
- Horold Roe\Hcro1d Roe A-lcug 23,dwg
2006 - 3:31pm
~ Z ~ U) 8'-{)"
0 0
.. :;0 C
~ -l ~ -l
I I
lT1 lT1
" I ~ I
9. ~ ~
~
(5 (5
Z Z
8'-0'
lil
z
'"
~~
"'8
~ifi
:::h,
~!:I
)
/
.;,
~
!TI
\
\
\
~
~~
z~
!l[",
"'-(
"'iii
~z
0'"
g~
Z"
!TI
'"
"
'"
'"
o
~
"
a
~
z
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
September 14, 2006
Walter Stapiak
2006-A-31
99 Lakeshore Road East, Plan 589, Lots 15, 16 (Oro)
PROPOSAL
The applicant has previously constructed several detached accessory structures, consisting of
a covered boat shelter, a "screened-in patio and storage" structure, and a framed storage
shed. The subject property also contains an existing frame garage. The subject property,
including the "water lot", consists of approximately 0.93 acres total. However, the land area of
the property consists of approximately 0.56 acres. As the total area of the above-noted
accessory structures excluding the boathouse is approximately 177 square metres (1,913
square feet), the applicant has exceeded the 5% maximum lot coverage for accessory
buildings by approximately 2.7%. As such, the applicant is requesting relief of the following
provision from Zoning By-law 97-95:
5.1.5 Maximum lot coverage
The maximum lot coverage of all detached accessory buildings and structures on
a lot, excluding boathouses, is 5 percent.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR)
Previous Applications- A-17/00 (minor variance was approved on June 15, 2000 for relief
from the exterior side yard (Oro Road) for an addition to the existing dwelling)
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department-
Buildinq Department- The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and note
that the applicant must verify that the sewage system meets the minimum required setbacks
as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code; verify septic location and provide setbacks to
buildings, permits required for accessory buildings, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority approval required.
Engineerinq Department- No concerns
on 8, 2006
comments:
5
2. Exposing of distribution pipes and tank may be required to verify setbacks.
It is the Planning Departments opinion that addressing the proposed minor variance
application is premature. Before this application is considered by the Committee of
Adjustment, the applicant should contact the Building Department to verify the location of the
septic system to ensure conformity with the Building Code from the septic system to the
detached buildings.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee defer Minor Variance application 2006-A-31 to allow
time for the applicant to contact the Building Department to address septic system concerns.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
TOWN8tllP
_/(j}_OF-ffff-/--T:
L'1/({f - JtlVea{f/Zle
Change of Use
Permit Application
\ :e:~~~o
Date rcvd
Fee rcpt no
THE CORPORATION OF THE
,AS[ NOIE' th" app""".. 's f.' addld.ns I ",n."".. th" win NOT ",on'''' .p",adlng.t an es,,,'ng sewage
,tem. If an np",ade wll' he ",qu'",d, a ~w.ge system Pmmll A.p""".n sh.u'd be used. If y.u a'" unsu""
nsult the Inspector before submitting this Application.
Name and Address of Registered owner Name and Address of owner's Authorized Agent
I 1 fu-nAJ ~rLV> I At. o/i I ^ ~ h~ -~I>, EA..sJ..
Authorization Rec'd:
78~~7gJf1 -\ All--, q~~/~1~ 1 [ Home phone \ 5us. Phone ~
10S
I'roperty Assessment Roll Number:
Municipality NeW Name Municipality Old Name c.on<:ession Twp. Lot No. I'lan No. Sub. lot No.
OeD _ fYle1')o N re 000 ~ /sH(:;, 51?
Street Name: Street No. (911#) \ I'resent Zoning:
plumbing fixtures no. before no. after No. of bedrooms existing before renovatlon...[:? 1
Toilets ~ i '1_ No. of bedrooms proposed after renovatlon...!3 ]
Tubs I Showers ~ I I No. of separate dwelling units before...l ( 1 alter...[ (1
Hot Tubs I Spas Indicate fiNISHED flOOR AREA In sq. M [ 1 or sq. It. \ ] "'2.8:;
Washbasins ~ if I '2 Basement before: tJ 0# e after: ;l)o~ [
Kitchen SinkS ~ ~ ./ I first floor before: OX'S after: o'l~
Automatic. Dishwashers Second floor before: r- after:
Garbage Grinders Third floor before: ~ after:
laundry Tubs MCJ?J Otller before: /"" after:
Automatic. Washers -~ I l Total Area before: /;:)...'S'; after: /;LgS
Is there a Water filter it!] and I or a Water ~ftener ! 1 that backwashes into the sewer lines? (check v' If there Is)
WATER SUPPLY: communal..! ] drilled well..! vi dug well..! 1 lake or rlver..l ] other..[ ] (describe)...
The SEWAGE SYSTEM was Installed In Iqqo, (year). the owner then was tJ [k;rl::12- S,\p.pl-AIC.--
Provide a complete and detailed site plan that accurately shoWS the property and proposed work. on legal or letter size paper.
WARNING: any deviation from the approved plans. specifications or building location after the Issuance of this permit Is a violation of
the Building Code Act and is liable to prosec.utlon.
,..~ '" ._'" _ '" ......"_ . '" "~'"" .,.u, ~. ...... .,.u' ",.. ,...,..., ~"........M -, _.....~ '"~.. ".~" _.~,
.__.. ._,~,', ~~~,.. ~......u.,'~ ,.....~. ".,.._ _... ,.,.,.. .~." '" -.'" .~, 1''''-' <OM' '" wo.-
.. ..,,,". _" ,. .~ .., ,_ .. _"' ",,_"'" ,,, WO""..,~ ... · ~'"_. .~ .. ...... '"'~, ~ .... '" ..,....",
thereunder.
DEClARATION
, ~re", .... .~" ~.. _...... '" ,.__ '"~~. ..,~ ,,'_'"' ~~. .~ ,~_., ..,..~... .re' - · "'0 '-~". ,,",00
truly stated to e best of my knowledge and belief, as If made under and by virtue 01 The <:anada Evidence Ad.
CI)/JA.-1tfl- ~'"f.(}P/AL
print Name
In
Date:
,i?: ,,;;.D
0;
it
i
,
<)<; :
J~J:<) ~
,,' !
;
I';
~\ L-:\ t/\l-- $~?
' "), \I
; ~IN O:'~
I ,
-+- l'
\,--' 2\lJ
----.----
I
\16 ~
~
~
"'-lc Ll
/
i
i
!
KNOWN
A
51(101
""
00')'"
~
o
Pi
" 0 i
v
v
v ~
,~ 9:
2.07
"
0<
~ (,
9
n
g ''',
"
~
LOT 16
Ii
,
.
e,
~ Q
9:
,
c, .c
~
v
3.26
G<ile
Cl
6
Q:
:~;
;~;
CJ
Q:
CJ
IN
OF
BROK
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
September 14, 2006
Grant Serra
883 Horseshoe Valley Road East, Conc. 11, North Part Lot 1 (Oro)
2006-A-24
(Revised)
THE PROPOSAL
On August 10, 2006, minor variance application 2006-A-24 was deferred by the Committee
of Adjustment which would permit the construction of a detached garage with an area of
123.93 m2 (1334 if). The applicant has since submitted revised plans and drawings showing
the detached garage and is now requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95:
1. Section 5.1.5 Maximum lot coveraqe for detached accessory buildinqs; to allow a
detached building to be constructed that will result in the total cumulative lot coverage
for all detached accessory structures on the property to be 7.8% (where the Zoning By-
law prescribes a maximum cumulative coverage of 5%).
2. Section 5.1.6 Maximum floor area for the detached building from the required 70
square metres (753.5 square feet) to a proposed 84.5 square metres (910 square
feet) .
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential One
Previous Applications-
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is
for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department-
Building Department-
Engineering Department- No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
subject property has a road frontage of 46 metres (153 feet), a lot depth of 51 metres
(168 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.25 hectares (0.6 acres). The lands currently
have an old school house which has converted to a residence, a detached garage
area 69 and a shed an area of 40 m2
o
lot and 2.5m (8.2
the above noted relief for the
accommodate room for an RV.
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Do the variances conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Rural Settlement Area. The primary function of the Rural
Settlement Area designation is to identify and permit residential uses which are compatible
and in keeping with the character of a residential community. Given the revised size of the
storage building, being 910 fe, the variance would be in keeping with the character of
development of the residential area. On this basis, the proposal would be in keeping with the
intent of the Official Plan.
Do the variances conform
the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Residential One (R 1). It is the applicants' intent to use the
proposed building for storage of an RV.
The intent of the Zoning By-law is to provide regulations which should foster compatibility
amongst land uses and structures. With respect to accessory buildings, zoning regulations
typically aim to ensure that such buildings are clearly accessory and incidental to the primary
use of the lot. The primary reason for controlling maximum floor areas on accessory
buildings in a residential area is to ensure that structures are consistent with the character of
a community and do not evolve into other secondary or subsequent land uses, such as an
apartment or industrial uses.
Including the detached garage, the lot coverage of all detached accessory buildings will
exceed the required maximum lot coverage of 5%, as the proposed storage building will
increase the lot coverage to 7.8%. Given these factors, the proposal is deemed to conform
with the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the
Detached storage buildings and garages are a common element in all types of residential
areas. The applicant has reduced the size of the proposed storage building from 123.93 sq.
metres (1334 sq. feet) to 84.5 sq. metres (910 sq. feet) - as such, the revised size of the
proposed structure is appropriate and compatible with the characteristics of the property and
surrounding residential lots.
Are the variances minor?
The application is deemed to be minor on the basis that the applicant has complied with the
tests noted above. There is merit that the detached garage will maintain the minimum
setback from the side and front lot lines, as well as the minimum distance from the abutting
detached garage.
The subject
addresses the 4 tests
minor variance.
The proposal as
on the easterly
structure into
lot
from the original proposal. Given these factors, the reduced floor area is deemed to conform
with the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
The minor variance as revised to a maximum floor area of 910 fe is now considered to be
consistent with the character of a residential lot and the overall residential area. On this
basis, the application is deemed to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot.
The application is deemed to be minor in nature on the basis that the application meets the
four tests of the minor variance, that an accessory building is a permitted use on a residential
property, that the proposed structure is well setback from the front lot line and is buffered
from the easterly property line by mature trees and that the revised floor area is compatible
with the overall residential area for the storage of an RV.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee approved Minor Variance application 2006-A-24 as
revised for a 84.5 m2 (910 ft2) detached coverall building accessory to a residential use
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the size of the proposed detached coverall building be no larger than 84.5 m2
(910 fe);
2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided
for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; and,
3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application
and on the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Adam Kozlowski B.URPI
Planning Technician
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
,,,,.(7"')
Z9'.'oo~~~_.
~
.~
I
II I I--r-u-
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I r
J I I I I I I
,~ I I I "~~ I I
illll ~ II
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
II I I I I I I
tLI-.tJ ,. L.! .1
\b~'
j -- .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I ,
~...., "- 28;:&.0
"
0)
--<
~
::t:
&
1!U'PfJr::;' $/0
.~
.:1
~
~
.l!M/d1"ilV4~
/AI_","""""",
,.
f~
i
!
P\C\lO~ J
built't.~ ~l. ",'
~
r'
I
:..
"
~
. --~
,,","&I. '''''''''OJAV I
~ ",",V.. ~V
~
5t:44
_"doe
~
I
, I
~
!
L. ____
r -U,",,'-- ......
\
I~
J 8N~
ftf~\ i)~ Ud (l~
I~S.~
514("4?t)
ed.
i'
-~-
1..<-:
~
I tflO!iVol
"'~-
8 ::~:A110N
Committee of Adiustment Minutes
Thursdav AUQust 10, 2006, 9:30 a.m.
In Attendance: Member Allan Johnson, Member Dave Edwards, Member Garry
Potter, Member Michelle Lynch, Secretary-Treasurer Andy Karaiskakis
Absent: Chairperson Lynda Aiken
1. Communications and Correspondence
i) Correspondence to be addressed at the time of the specific
hearing.
ii) Appointment of Acting Chairperson for August 10, 2006 meeting in
the absence of Ms. Lynda Aiken
The Secretary-Treasurer opened the floor for nominations for the position of
Acting Chairperson for the meeting
Motion No. CA06081 0-1
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Dave Edwards
That Michelle Lynch be nominated for the position of Acting Chairperson.
The Secretary-Treasurer asked Ms. if she would stand for the position
of Acting Chairperson for the meeting of August 10, 2006 and Ms. Lynch
accepted.
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
None declared
3. HearinQs:
9:30
Julia Poore
Plan 765, 13 (Ora)
Greenwood Ave
2004-A-14(Revised)
Wes
the Committee hereby approve the revision
2004-A-1 subject to the following conditions:
Variance
1. That the existing decks on the lower and upper level shall be no closer
than 8.7 metres (28 feet) from the average high water mark of Bass Lake;
2. That the existing decks shall not encroach any further into the existing
setback from the south interior side lot line;
3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the
application and on the sketches submitted with the application and
approved by the Committee; and
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's
Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final
and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
9:40
Kevin liscombe
Plan 1488, lot 72 (Oro)
21 Greengables Drive
A-25/91 (Revised)
In Attendance: Kevin liscombe, applicant
Motion No. CA06081 0-3
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby defer the revision to Minor Variance Application A-
25/91 to allow time for the applicant to consider amending the application for the
setback from the deck to the rear property line.
... ..Carried."
9:50
Jerome & Cunningham
Plan 535, Lot 11 (Oro)
2 Nevis Ridge Road
2006-A-22
In Attendance: Linda Cunningham, applicant, Ken Warren, 8 Jermey Lane,
Todd Jeffrey, 10 Jermey Lane, and Lois Harnock, 12 Jermey Lane
Motion No. CA06081 0-4
RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Dave Edwards
"That the Committee hereby Defer Minor Variance Application 2006-A-22 to
allow time for the applicant to submit a revised site plan showing the detached
garage being relocated closer to the dwelling, to ensure that the location of the
proposed garage will meet the minimum required setbacks to the septic system
as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code, and that the revised site plan will
show no driveway access entering off of Jermey Lane.
... ..Carried."
1
Heather Shear
Plan 765, Lot 16 (Oro)
31 Greenwood Ave
2006-A-23
In Attendance: David Hacker, applicants husband
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Tim Salkeld, Resource Planner,
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated August 4,2006 verbatim
to the Committee members and those present in the audience.
Motion No. CA06081
BE RESOLVED that:
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Garry Potter
"That the Committee hereby Defer Minor Variance 2006-A-23 to allow time for
the revised application to be re-circulated to the public in accordance with
Section 45 of the Planning Act
.... .Carried."
1 10
Neil McNiven
Concession 8,
8
Lot 3
Attendance: Neil McNiven, applicant, John Hare, neighbour
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Rachelle Hamelin, Planner II, County of
Simcoe, dated August 9, 2006 verbatim to the Committee members and
those present in the audience.
Motion No. CA06081 0-6
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Dave Edwards
"That the Committee hereby Defer Consent Application 2006-B-18 to allow time
for the applicant to consider the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the location of the new lot.
... ..Defeated."
Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Dave Edwards
"That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent for application 2006-B-
18 subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the new lot, including the 1
square foot land noted Condition 3, be prepared by an Ontario Land
Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer;
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of proposed
conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. That the Township receives a 1 square foot conveyance of land, free and
clear of all and any encumbrances, from the property being enlarged at
Concession 8, North Part Lot 3, former Township of Oro. The applicant
shall pay all costs related to this condition, including any costs for
surveying and/or any costs related to the preparation and/ or registration
of any required municipal by-law related to the said conveyance;
That the retained agricultural lands be merged title with the residential
lot created 1988 (Part 1, RP 51 R-1821 0) and that the provisions
Subsection 3 or 5 Section Planning apply
or
zoned be rezoned to A/RU to be consistent with the zoning fabric
the area and that the proposed location of the transposed lot be rezoned
from the AlRU to the RUR2 to accurately reflect the intended land use;
and,
7. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of this notice as noted below.
... ..Carried."
1
Sharon Bennett
Concession, West Part lot 11, RP 51 R-1
2006-B-19
Part 1 (Medonte)
In Attendance: Warren Bennett, applicants' husband
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Walter Dickie, Concession 13, lot 10,
dated August 8, 2006 verbatim to the Committee members and those
present in the audience.
Motion No. CA06081
BE RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Dave Edwards
"That the Committee hereby refuses Provisional Consent to application 2006-8-
19 for the reasons outlined herein:
1. Conformity with Section 09.3 of the Official Plan is not achieved;
2. The proposed new lot would not be in keeping with the established lot
fabric in this area of the Township;
3. The application would constitute an extension of an estate residential plan
of subdivision which is not in keeping with the existing nor the adopted
Official Plan; and,
The proposal does not constitute good planning.
.,. ..Carried."
10:30
Grant Serra
Concession 11, North Part Lot 1 (01'0)
883 Horseshoe Valley Road East
2006-A-24
In Attendance: Grant Serra, applicant
Motion No. CA06081 0-8
IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby Defer Minor Variance Application 2006-A-24 to
allow time for the applicant to submit revised drawings for the proposed
detached garage.
... ..Carried."
10:40
Catharine, Michael, Richard & Woods
Concession 2, Part lot 2 (Oro)
2773 Ridge Road West
2006-B-17
2006-A-21
In Attendance: John Waldie, applicant, 2793 Ridge Road West, Bret Smith,
purchasing retained lot.
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Greg Marek, Planning/Engineering
Technician, County of Simcoe, dated August 2, 2006 verbatim to the
Committee members and those present in the audience.
Motion No. CA06081 0-9
BE RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby Committee Grant Consent application 2006-B-17 for
a lot addition/boundary adjustment from 2773 Ridge Road West to 2793 Ridge
Road West and subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands showing a
revised lot frontage prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted
to the Committee Secretary;
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. That the applicant's solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed
lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title;
4. That the severed lands be merged in title with 2793 Ridge Road West and
that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act
apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject
lands;
5. That the retained lands, 2773 Ridge Road West maintain a minimum lot
frontage 45 metres (147.6 feet) required Zoning By-law 97-95;
conditions consent imposed by Committee be
within one year from the date the giving of the notice.
.. ...Carried."
Motion No. CA06081 0-1 0
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance application 2006-A-21 for
an interior side yard setback of 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to 3.05 metres (10 feet) for
the retained parcel, 2773 Ridge Road West.
...Carried."
5. Other Business
i. Adoption of minutes for the July 13, 2006 Meeting
Motion No. CA060810-11
Moved by Dave Edwards, Seconded by Allan Johnson
the minutes for the
and circulated
13th 2006 Meeting be adopted as
.. .Carried."
6. Adjournment
Motion No. CA06081 0-12
Moved by Allan Johnson, Seconded by Dave Edwards
"We do now adjourn at 1 :30
"
... Carried."